The principles of the Cyprianic age with regard to episcopal power and jurisdiction asserted and recommended from the genuine writings of St. Cyprian himself and his contemporaries : by which it is made evident that the vindicator of the Kirk of Scotland is obligated by his own concession to acknowledge that he and his associates are schismaticks : in a letter to a friend / by J.S.

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE Cyprianic Age, &c.

SIR,

I Acknowledge you have performed your Promise. The Author of the Defence of the Vindication of the Church of Scotland, in Answer to an Apology OF (he should have said FOR) the Clergy of Scotland, has indeed said so as you affirmed: And I ask your Pardon for putting you to the trouble of sending me his Book and Pointing to Sect. 39. Page 34. where he has said so. But now, after all, what thô he has said so? And said so, so boldly? Do you think his bare saying so is enough to determine our Question? Don't mistake it. That which made me so backward to believe he had said so, was not any dreadful Apprehension I had of ei∣ther his Reason or Authority; but a Perswasion that none of his Party would have been so rash, as to have put their being or not being Schismaticks upon such a desperate Issue. And that you may not apprehend my Perswasion was unreasonable, I shall first take to Task what he hath said; and then, per∣chance, add something concerning our main Argument. His Words are these.

Arg. 5. Cyprian's Notion of Schism is, when one separateth from his own Bishop. This the Presbyterians do: Ergo. A. All

the strength of this Argument lieth in the sound of Words. A Bishop, in Cyprian's time, was not a Diocesan, with sole Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination. If he prove that, we shall Give Cyprian and him leave to call us Schismaticks. A Bishop, then, was the Pastor of a Flock, or the Moderator of a Presbytery. If he can prove, that we separate from our Pastors, or from the Presbytery, with their Moderator, under whose Inspection we ought to be, let him call us what he will: But we disown the Bi∣shops in Scotland from being our Bishops; we can neither own their Episcopal Authority, nor any Pastoral Relation that they have to us. Thus he.

Now, Sir, if one had a mind to catch at Words, what a Field might he have here? For Instance; Suppose the Word Diocess was not in use in St. Cyprian's time, as applied to a particular Bishop's District; Doth it follow, that the Thing now signi∣fied by it, was not then to be found? Again; What could move him to insinuate, that we assign the sole Power of Iuris∣diction and Ordination to our Diocesan Bishop? When did our Bishops claim that sole Power? When was it ascribed to them by the Constitution? When did any of our Bishops attempt to Exercise it? When did a Scotish Bishop offer, e. g. to Or∣dain or Depose a Presbyter, without the Concurrence of other Presbyters? When was such a sole Power deem'd Necessary for Raising a Bishop to all the due Elevations of the Episco∣pal Authority? How easie is it to distinguish between a Sole and a Chief Power? Between a Power Superiour to all other Powers, and a Power Exclusive of all other Powers? Between a Power, without, or against which, no other Powers can Act; thô they may, in Conjunction with it, or Subordination to it: And a Power, destroying all other Powers, or disabling them from Acting? Once more, How loose and Ambiguous is that part of his Definition of a Bishop, in St. Cyprian's time, in which he calls him, The Pastor of a Flock? May not a Bi∣shop, and his Diocess, be called a Pastor and a Flock, in as great propriety of Speech, as a Presbyterian Minister and his Parish? Sure I am, St. Cyprian and his Contemporaries thought so, as you may learn hereafter.

How easie were it, I say, for one to insist on such Escapes, if he had a mind for it? But I love not Jangle; and I must

avoid Prolixity: And therefore considering the State of the Controversie between our Author and the Apologist, and supposing he intended (however he expressed it) to speak home to the Apologist's Argument; the Force and Purpose of his Answer, as I take it, must be this.

That an Argument drawn from such as were called Bi∣shops in St. Cyprian's time, to such as are now so called in Scotland, is not good. That a Bishop, in St. Cyprian's time, was nothing like one of our modern Scotish Bishops; i. e. a Church Governour superiour to, and having a Prelatick Power over, all other Church-Governours within such a Di∣strict as we commonly call a Diocess. That a Bishop then was no more than a Single Presbyter, or Pastor of a single Flock, (such a Flock as could conveniently meet together in one Assem∣bly, for the Publick Offices of Religion; such a Flock as the People of one single Parish are, in the modern Presby∣terian Notion of a Parish,) acting in Parity with other single Pastors of other single Flocks or Parishes. Or, at most, That he was but the Moderator of a Presbytery, taking both Terms in the modern current Presbyterian Sense; i. e. as Moderator signfies One, who, as such, is no Church Governour, nor hath any Iurisdiction over his Brethren: One, whose Power is meerly 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 cometh before them; Not to Determine what is Debated amongst them. And as Presbytery signifies such a Number of Teaching and Ruling Presbyters living and having their Cures within such a Di∣strict; meeting together upon Occasion, and acting in Parity in the Administration of the Government, and Dis∣cipline of the Church. That therefore our Scotish Presbyte∣rians cannot be called Schismaticks in St. Cyprian's Notion of Schism, unless it can be proved, That they Separate from their Pastor, or Teaching Presbyter, who has such a Parish assigned to him for his Charge: Or, (not from the Modera∣tor of the Presbytery, who is not; but) from the Presbytery (which is the Principle of Unity) with their Moderator.

This, I say, I take to be the Purpose of our Author's An∣swer to the Apologist's Argument; on the Force whereof he ventures his Parties being, or not being, Schismatick••. If I

have mistaken his Meaning, I protest I have not done it wil∣fully. I am pretty sure, I have not, in the Definition of a Moderator; for I have Transcribed it, Word for Word, from one whom I take to be a dear Friend of his, intirely of the same Principles and Sentiments with him; and whose Defini∣tions, I am apt to think, he will not readily Reject. I mean, the Author of The Vindication of the Church of Scotland, in Answer to the Ten Questionsa 1.1. And doth not our Author him∣self, in this same 39th Section, (part whereof I am now con∣sidering,) affirm, That Fifty Years before the first Council of Nice, (i. e. some 17 or 18 Years after St. Cyprian's Martyr∣dom,) the Hierarchy was not in the Church? And that however some of the Names might have been, yet the Church-Power and Dominion, signified by them, was not then in Being? Plainly im∣porting, that the Church then was Governed by Pastors acting in Parity, after the Presbyterian Model. In short, what our Author hath said, when duly considered, will be found to be no Answer at all to the Apologist's Argument, if it is not to be understood in the Sense I have repre∣sented.

Taking it for granted, therefore, that I have hit his Mean∣ing, I hope you will not deny, that, If I shall prove that a Bishop, in Cyprian's time, was more than a Pastor of a Flock, or the Moderator of a Presbytery, in the Presbyterian Sense of the Terms: If I shall prove, that a Bishop then had really that which cannot be denied to have been true, Genuine Episcopal or Prelaiick Power: If I can prove, that he acted in a Real Superiority over, not in Parity with other Church-Governours, even Pastors: If I shall prove these Things, I say, I hope you'l grant, our Author is fairly bound by his Word to ac∣knowledge, that he and his Brethren Presbyterians are Schis∣maticks. Let us try it then: And now, Sir,

Before I come to my main Proofs, consider if it may not be deemed a shrewd Presumption against our Author in this matter, That generally the great Champions for Presbytery, such as Cham••er, Blondel, Salmasius, the Provincial Assembly of London, &c. do ingenuously acknowledge, That, long be∣fore St. Cyprian's time, Episcopacy was in the Church; even Spanhemius himself grants, That, in the Third Century, Bishops had a manifest Preheminence above Presbyters and

Deaco••s, and a Right of Presiding, Convocati••g, Ordainingb 1.2, &c. By the way: I have cited this Writer particularly, because our Author not only builds much on his Authorityc 1.3, but ho∣nours him with the great Character of being That diligent Searcher into Antiqui••y. How deservedly, let others judge; for my part, I cannot think he has been so very diligent a Searcher: For in that same very Section, in which he acknow∣ledges the Episcopal Preheminence in the Third Century, he says expresly, That, in that Age, there were no Door-Keepers, Acoly••ths, nor Exorc••ssd 1.4. And yet I not only find express mention of Exorcism in the Venerable Council of Cartbage, in which St. Cyprian was Praesese 1.5; But both Cyprian and Firmilian expresly mention Exarcistsf 1.6. And as for Acolyths, how often do we find them mentioned in Cyprian's Epistles? E. g. We have Narious an Ac••lyth, Ep. 7. Eavorinus, Ep. 34. Nice∣phorus, Ep. 45. Saturnus, and Felicianus, Ep. 59. Lucanus, Maximus, and Amantius, Ep. 77. And doth not Corneius Bishop of Rome, in his famous Epistle to Fabius Bishop of Antioch, Recorded by Eusebiusg 1.7, positively affirm, That there were then in the Church of Rome 42 Acolyths, and 52 Exor∣cists, Lectors, and Door-keepers? But this, as I said, only by the way.

That which I am concerned about at present, is, That when these great Patrons of Presbytery, these truly Learned Men, whom I named, have all so frankly yielded, that there was real Prelacy in the Church in, and before, St. Cy∣prian's time; yet our Author should affirm, so boldly, that there was no such Thing: That there was no Hierarchy in the Church then, nor for many Years after. Has our Au∣thor been a more diligent Searcher into Antiquity, than those great Antiquaries were, that he was thus able to contradict their Discoveries? I am not apt to believe it. However, as I said, let this pass only for a Presumption against him. I proceed to other Arguments. And,

1. I observe, that, in St. Cyprian's time, every Church all the World over, at least, every Church, Constituted and Organized, according to the Principles which then pre∣vailed, had a Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons, by whom she was Ruled.

Thus, for Example, we find express Mention of the Bi∣shop, Presbyters, and Deacons, of the Church of Adryme∣tumh 1.8; for Cyprian tells Corneius, That when He and Libera∣lis came to that City, Polycarpus the Bishop was absent, and the Presbyters and Deacons were ignorant of what had been Resolved on by the Body of the African Bishops, about wri∣ting to the Church of Rome, till the Controversie be∣tween Cornelius and Novatianus should be more fully under∣stood.

Thus Cyprian was Bishop of Carthage, and at the same time there were, in that City, 8 Presbyters at sewest: For we read of three, Rogatianus, Britius, and Numidicus, who adhered to himi 1.9. And five who took part with Felicissimus against him, when that Deacon made his Schismk 1.10. I hope I need not be at pains to prove, that there were Deacons then in that fa∣mous Church.

Thus Cornelius, in the afore-mentioned Epistle to Fabius, tells him, That while himself was Bishop of Rome, there were in that City no fewer than 46 Pre••byters, and 7 Dea∣cons, &c. A most flourishing Clergy, as St. Cyprian calls itl 1.11. Whoso pleases, may see the like Account of the Church of Alexandria, in the same Times, in Eusebiusm 1.12, Indeed,

If we may believe St. Cyprian, there was no Church then without a Bishop: For from this Supposition, as an uncon∣troverted Matter of Fact, he Reasons against Novatianusn 1.13. His Argument is, That there is but One Church, and One Epi∣scopacy, all the World over; and that Catholick and Orthodox Bishops were regularly planted in every Province and City, and therefore Novatianus could not but be a Schismatick, who, contrary to Divine Institution, and the Fundamental Laws of Unity, laboured to super-induce false Bishops into these Cities, where True and Orthodox Bishops were already planted. And he Rea∣sons again upon the same Supposition, in the beginning of his 63d Epistle directed to Caecilius, concerning the Cup in

the Eucharisto 1.14. From this Supposition, I say, as from an uncontested Matter of Fact, he Reasons, in both Cases, which is a Demonstration, not only of the Credibility of his Testi∣mony, but that the Matter of Fact was then so Notorious, as to be undeniable. He Reason'd from it, as from an acknow∣ledged 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 Priesth••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 Pray••rs, &c. as we find in the Instance of Ge∣minius Faustinusp 1.15. Such as God, in his merciful Providence, was pleased to raise to the Glorious Station of the Priesthood; as in the Case of Numidicusq 1.16. Such as in the time of Perse∣cution went to the Prisons, and gave the Holy Eucharist to the Confessorsr 1.17. 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 Altarss 1.18. Such as, contrary to all Rule and Order, absolved the Lapsers, and gave them the Communion, without the Bishops Licencet 1.19. Such as were joyned with the Bishop in the Sacerdotal Honouru 1.20. 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, there∣after, 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 Blame∣lessv 1.21.

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 So∣lemn 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 men∣tioned 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 imme∣diately 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 Pasto••, 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 Churchvv 1.22. 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 PRIESTx 1.23? 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 Emi∣nencey 1.24. The Church was compared to a Ship, and the Bishop was the Masterz 1.25. He was the Father, and all the Christians within his District were his Childrena 1.26. He was the Gover∣nourb 1.27, the Rectorc 1.28, the Captaind 1.29, the Heade 1.30, the Iudgef 1.31, of all within his Diocess. He was the chief Pastor; and thô Pres∣byters; 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 Pro¦motion, look'd only on themselves as Vice-Pastors, saying, That, in such a juncture, they kept the Flock in STEAD of the Pastor, the Bishopg 1.32. 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. Cyprianh 1.33.

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 think∣ing Man's conviction, That he was neither The Pastor of the Fl••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, be∣sides 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 Pl••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 Presby∣terian Mod••rator, as such, has no direct, immediate, formal Rela∣tion 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 La∣bours 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 iti 1.34. 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)k 1.35. 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 Promo∣tion 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 Ca∣nonically filled, whosoever else pretended to be Bishop of that See, was not a second Bishop, but none at all, in St. Cyprian's Judgmentl 1.36. Nay, he was so far from reckoning of him as another Bishop, that he deemed him not a Christianm 1.37. Innu∣merable are his Testimonies to this purposen 1.38. 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, consi∣der how St. Cyprian decides it. The Church is one (says he); and this one Chuch cannot be both within and without: If, there∣fore, the True Church is with Novatianus, She was not with Cor∣nelius. 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 suc∣ceeding 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 Her∣self, &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 succe∣daneous

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 Unanimityo 1.39.

Neither was this Principle peculiar to St. Cyprian: Corne∣lius, 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 itp 1.40. And when Maximus, Urbanus, Sidonius, Macarius, &c. deserted Nova∣tianus, and returned to Cornelius his Communion, they made a Solemn Confession, That, upon the score of that same com∣mon Maxim, they ought to have look'd upon Novatianus as a False and Schismatical Bishop. We know, say they, that Cor∣nelius was chosen Bishop of the most Holy Catholick Church by the Omnipotent God, and our Lord Iesus Christ. We co••fess our Error; we were imposed upon; we were circumvented by Perfidy and En∣snaring 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 Ca∣tholick Churchq 1.41. 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 there∣after he should be admitted to the Communion of Laicksr 1.42. We have Instances of Deposition in the same Basilides and Mar∣tialiss 1.43, in Marcianust 1.44, Privatus Lambesitanusu 1.45, Evaristusv 1.46, For∣tunatianusvv 1.47, 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 overx 1.48. I know, 'tis controverted whether a Bishop, in those Times, was Chosen by the People, or only in the presence of the People? But my present pur∣pose doth not engage me in that Controversie.

4. But Election was not enough: Thô the Person elected was already a Presbyter, and in Priestly Order; yet when he was to be Promoted to a Bishoprick, he was to receive a new Imposition of Hands, a new Ordination. His former

Orders were not sufficient for that Supreme Office. Thus, e. g. St. Cyprian was first a Presbyter, and then Ordained Bishop of Carthage, if we may believe his Deacon Pontius, Eu••ebius, and St. Ieromey 1.49. Thus our Holy Martyr tells us, That Cornelius had made his Advances, gradually, through all the inferior Stations, and so, no doubt, had been a Presbyter, be∣fore he was a Bishopz 1.50. And yet we find, when he was Pro∣moted to the See of Rome, he was Ordained by 16 Bis••••psa 1.51. Thus we find also, in the Promotion of Sabinus to the Bi∣shoprick from which Basilides had fallen, that he was Ordained by the Imposition of the Hands of the Bishops who were then present at his Electionb 1.52. Thus Fortunatus, Achimnius, Optatus, Privationus, Donatulus, and F••ix, 6 Bishops, Ordained a Bi∣shop at Capsisc 1.53. Thus Heraclus was first a Presbyter under Demetrius, in the Church of Alexandria, and then succeeded to him in the Episcopal Chaird 1.54. Dionysius was first a Presby∣ter under Heraclas, and then succeeded to hime 1.55. And Maxi∣mus, who had been a Presbyter under him, succeeded, to Dionysiusf 1.56. And before all these, some 70 Years before St. Cy∣prian's time, Irenaeus was first a Presbyter under Photinus, and afterwards his Successor in the Bishoprick of Lionsg 1.57. Nor is it to be doubted, that each of these was Raised to the Episco∣pal Dignity by a new Ordinatio••. The first of the Canons, commonly called Apostolical, which requires, That a Bishop be Ordained by two or three Bishops, was, doubtless, all along ob∣servedh 1.58. Nay, this Necessity of a new Ordination for Raising One to the Episcopal Power, was so Notorious and Recei∣ved then, that the Schismaticks themselves believed it indispen∣sible. And therefore Novatianus, thô formerly a Presbyter, (as Cornelius tells expresly in that so often cited Epistle to Fabius,) when he Rival'd it with Cornelius for the Chair of Rome, that he might have the shew, at least, of a Canonical Ordination, he got three simple inconsiderate Bishops to come to the City, upon pretence of Consulting with other Bishops about set∣ling the Commotions of the Church: And having them once in his Clutches, he shut them up under Lock and Key, till they were put in a scandalous Disorder, and then forced them to give him the Episcopal Mission, by an imaginary and vain Imposition of Hands, as Cornelius words iti 1.59. Thus also, when Fortunatus, One of the Five Presbyters who joyned with

the Schismatical Felicissumus against St. Cyprian, t••••ned bold to set up as an Anti-Bishop at Carthage; He was Ordained by Five false Bishopsk 1.60. And now, Sir, by this Accoun••, I think we have our Author's Definition of a Bishop, in St. Cyprian's time, fairly routed a second time: For,

How could the Maxim of but One Bishop, at once, in a Church hold, if that Bishop was nothing but a single Presbyter? The Church of Rome was but One Church; so was the Church of Carthage: And yet, in each of these Churches, there were many single Presbyters. Again,

If a Bishop, in St. Cyprian's time, was no more than a single Presbyter, in the Presbyterian Sense, what needed so much work about him? Why, e. g. convene all the Presbyters of a Province, such as Africa or Numidia was, for the Election and Ordination of a single Presbyter in Carthage, where there were Presbyters more than enough to have performed all the Busi∣ness? What needed the Church of Rome to make such work about supplying such a Vacancy as was there, before Corne∣lius was Promoted? Why a Convention of Sixteen Neigh∣bouring Bishops to give him Holy Orders? Might not the Forty Six, who lived in Rome, have served the turn? Might not these Forty Six, I say, have filled Fabianus his Room with far greater Ease and Expedition? If they made such work, and had such Difficulties, (as we find they had about a Bishop,) in setling One single Brother Presbyter, when, according to our Author's Principles, they had the full Power of doing it, what had become of them, if Thirty, nay Twenty, nay Ten of the Forty six, had all died in one Year? Sure, they had never got so many Vacancies filled. And then,

Were not Cornelius and Novatianus Presbyters of Rome, be∣fore the former was the Tr••e, and the latter the False Bishop of that City? If so, what need of a new Election, and a new Ordination for making them Presbyters of a Church, of which they were Presbyters already? Had it not been pretty pleasant, in such a grave, serious, persecuted State of the Church, to have seen two eminent Men, already Presbyters of Rome, making so much work about being made Presbyters of Rome? And all the Clergy and Christians of Rome, nay sooner or later, of all the Christian World, engaged in the Quarrel? What had this been other than the very Mystery of Ridiculousness? But this is not all.

The Premisses will as little allow him to have been a Presby∣terian Moderator: For, to what purpose so much ado about the Establishment of a meer Moderator of a Presbytery? Why, so much stress laid upon only one Moderator in a City? Why no Canonical Vacancy of his Moderatorial Chair, unless in the case of Death, Cession, or Forfeiture? Sure, if they had then understood all the Exigencies and Analogies of Parity, they would not have been so much in love with a constant Modera∣tor; no, they would have judged him highly inconvenient, and by all means to be shunned: If he had been imposed on the Meeting, it had been an Encroachment on their Intrinsick Power; and so, absolutely unlawful, and Prelacy: And thò Chosen by themselves, fatal; as having a violent Tendency to Lordly Prelacy: And there∣fore they could never have yielded to have One with a Good Con∣sciencel 1.61. Again,

How often did the Presbytery of Rome meet, in the Interval between Fabianus his Death, and Cornelius his Promotion? How many excellent Epistles did they write to the Neigh∣bouring Bishops and Churches, and these, about the most weighty and important Matters during that Vacancy? They wrote that which is the Eighth in Number, amongst St. Cyprian's Epistles to the Carthaginian Clergy, and, at the same time, One to St. Cyprian, then in his Retirement, which is lost, They wrote that notable Epistle, which is the Thirtieth in Number, in which they not only mention other of their Epistles which they had wrote to St. Cyprian, and which are not now extant; but also Epistles, one or more, which they had sent to Sicily. They wrote also that considerable Epistle, which is in Num∣ber the Thirty sixth. It is not to be doubted that they wrote many more. How many Meetings and Consultations had they, during these Sixteen Months, about the Affairs of the Church, and particularly, the Case of the Lapsi, which was then so much agitated? Is it probable, that they wanted a Moderator; a Mouth of their Meeting; One to keep Order in the manner and managing of the Affairs were brought before them all that time, and in all those Meetings? How could they, without one, handle Matters with Order and De∣cency? And what was there to hinder them from having one, if they had a mind for him? Might they not have cho∣sen one as safely as they met? Might they not have chosen

one at every Meeting, according to the Principles of Parity? Farther:

What need of so much Parade about the Election of a Moderator of a Presbytery, as was then about the Election of a Bishop? Why the People chose him, according to the Prin∣ciples 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 Iuris∣diction over his Brethren? That his Power was only Ordina∣tive, 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 con∣trary 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 Neighbour∣hood 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 convo∣cated for managing the Election of a Moderator, were Modera∣tors too: And so, by consequence, Sixteen Moderators of other Presbyteries met at Rome to constitute a Moderator for the Ro∣man Presbytery. And might not the Presbytery of Rome have chosen their own Moderator without the Trouble or the Inspe∣ction 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 perfor∣med by none but Moderators of other Presbyteries? Thus, e. g. it behoved Six Moderators to meet at Capsis, to Ordain a Mode∣rator for the Presbytery of Capsis; and Sixteen at Rome, to Or∣dain 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-Modera∣tor. 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 re∣gard, 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 depend∣ing 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 Mattera 1.62. This is a Point of great Consequence, espe∣cially 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 Impor∣tance,

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 Christia∣nity; God heard the Prayers that were put up in Unityb 1.63, 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 Sacrificesc 1.64. Nothing afforded greater Pleasure to the Angels in Heaven, than Har∣mony amongst Christians on Earthd 1.65. It were easie to col∣lect 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 Unitye 1.66. Christ instituted the Church, and the De∣vil Heresief 1.67, 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 Argu∣mentsg 1.68. Firmilian affirms it alsoh 1.69. 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 Sa∣crifice, Suffers only for saving his own Soul; But he that Suffers for Unity, Suffers for the whole Churchi 1.70. Schismaticks had not the Spiritk 1.71; Were forsaken of the Spiritl 1.72; Held not the Faithm 1.73, Had neither Father, Son, nor Holy-Ghostn 1.74. They were Rene∣gadoeso 1.75; Apostatesp 1.76; Malignantsq 1.77; Parricidesr 1.78; Anti-Christss 1.79; False Christst 1.80; Christ's Enemiesu 1.81; Blasphemersv 1.82; The Devil's Priestsvv 1.83; Retainers to Corahx 1.84; Retainers to Iudasy 1.85; Villainous and Perfidiousz 1.86; Aliens, Profane, Enemiesa 1.87; Were without Hopeb 1.88;

Had no Right to the Promisesc 1.89; Could not be savedd 1.90; Were Infidelse 1.91; Worse than Heathensf 1.92; Self-Condemnedg 1.93; were no more Christians than the Devilh 1.94; Could but belong to Christi 1.95; Could not go to Heavenk 1.96; The hottest part of Hell their Por∣tionl 1.97; Their Society, the Synagogue of Satanm 1.98; Their Conventi∣cles, Dens of Thievesn 1.99; They were Destroyers of Soulso 1.100; Their Preaching was poysonousp 1.101; Their Baptism pestiferousq 1.102, and pro∣faner 1.103; Their Sacrifices abominables 1.104; They could not be Martyrst 1.105; Their Company was to be avoidedu 1.106: Whoso befriended them, were Persecutors of the Truthv 1.107; Were Betrayers of Christ's Spouse to Adulterersvv 1.108; Were Betrayers of Unityx 1.109; Were involved in the some Guilt with themy 1.110. In short, Schismaticks, by being such, were, Ipso facto, Persecutors of the Churchz 1.111, Enemies of Mercya 1.112, Infatuated Saltb 1.113, and Cursed of Godc 1.114.

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 se∣riously 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 oppo∣sition 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 Preven∣ting 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 Ru∣lers: And therefore, seeing this is God's appointment, I cannot but admire the bold Temerity of some, who, writing to me, call them∣selves 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 Prin∣ciple of Unityd 1.115. 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 Adulte∣rous,

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 Bishopse 1.116, &c. And, as I observed before, in his Epistle to Florentinus Pupia∣nus, he defines a Church to be a People united to their Priest, and a Flock adhering to their Pastor, &c. and from thence tells Pu∣pianus, 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 Churchf 1.117. And how con∣cernedly 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 Prayersg 1.118, &c. In∣deed, in that same Book he calls the Bishop, The Glue that ce∣ments Christians into the solid Unity of the Churchh 1.119. 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 ill••advised Schismaticks: They follow their own Fancies, and, in the Pride of their Hearts, con∣temn 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 Unityi 1.120. 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 Churchk 1.121. 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 Menl 1.122. And a little after, he tells him, (allu∣ding 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 Bishopsm 1.123. And in another place, Then is the Bond of our Lord's Peace broken; then is Brotherly Charity violated; then is the Truth adulterated, and Unity divided; then Men leap out into He∣resies 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 Superiourn 1.124. Indeed,

4. By the Principles of those Times, the Bishop was so much the Principle of Unity to the Church which he Gover∣ned; 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 Com∣munion; St. Cyprian, with other 36 Bishops, tells those Peo∣ple, 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 Sacrificeso 1.125. And again, in that same Synodical Epistle, they say, that it was a negle∣cting of Divine Discipline, and an Unaccountable Rashness to Com∣municate 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 Punish∣mentp 1.126. Indeed, this is the great Purpose of that 67th Epistle; as also of the 68th concerning Marcianus, who, by Commu∣nicating with Novatianus, had rendred his own Communion Infectious and Abominableq 1.127.

On the other hand, when Cornelius Bishop of Rome con∣fessed the Faith before the Heathen Persecutors, St. Cyprian says, the whole Roman Church confessedr 1.128. 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 Con∣gruous 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 Glo∣rious 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 Carthages 1.129. 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 Distres∣ses, his Distressest 1.130, &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 Car∣thage, 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 who∣soever were sincerely willing to Suffer, in the sight of Christ who was looking on, and in the Hearing of their Bishop, did, in a man∣ner, send an Embassy to Heaven, by One who was a competent Witness of their Wishesu 1.131.

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 Episco∣pacy 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 Bishopv 1.132. 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 Churchvv 1.133. 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 Bishopsx 1.134. 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 Ephe∣sians, that he received their whole Body, in their Bishop Onesi∣musy 1.135.

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 Societyz 1.136.

6. Indeed, this Principle, of the Bishop's being the Center of Unity to his Church, was most reasonable and accoun∣table in it self. Every particular Church is an Organiz'd Poli∣tical 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 Vi∣car, &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 all con∣science, 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 visi••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

sh••re of it assigned him, to Rule and Govern with the Plenitude of the Episcopal Authoritya 1.137. There was One Church all the World over, divided into many Members; and there was One Episcopacy d••ffused in proportion to that One Church, by the Harmonious Nume∣r••sity of many Bishopsb 1.138. Or, if you would have it in other words, the One Catholick Church was divided into many Pre∣cincts, Districts, or Diocesses; call them as you will: Each of those District•• 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 indepen∣dent on, and stood collateral with all other Bishops. There's nothing more fully, or more plainly, or more frequently in∣sisted on by St. Cyprian, than this Great Principle. I shall only give you a short view of it from him and his Contem∣poraries. 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-Ghostc 1.139, &c. And again, The rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was, endued with an Equality of Power and Honourd 1.140. 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 agree∣ably, 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 Gode 1.141. 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 fittingf 1.142, &c. The same way he concludes his Epistle to Magnus, concerning that same Case of Baptism performed by Hereticksg 1.143. To the same purpose is the whole Strain of his Epistle to Florentius Pupianush 1.144. And what can be more clear, or full, than his excellent Discourse at the opening of the Coun∣cil of Carthage, Anno 256? More than Eighty Bishops met, to determine concerning that same matter of Baptism admi∣nistred 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 costi∣tutes himself Bishop of Bishops, nor forces his Collegues upon a ne∣cessity 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 Judg∣ment of our Lord Iesus Christ, who alone hath Power of making us Governours of his Church, and calling us to an Account for our Administrationsi 1.145.

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 preg∣nant Proof as possibly can be desired: For when the Schis∣matical 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

con∣tinue 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, 'tis 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 Crimek 1.146, &c. In which Rea∣soning, 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 ano∣ther Bishop; nor could receive Appeals from his Sentences. And, 3. That this Independency of Bishops, this Unac∣countableness 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 concer∣ning 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 deter∣mined, and that they will needs retain some Methods peculiar to themselves; but still with the Safety of Peace, and Concord with their Collegues: In which case, we offer Violence, we proscribe Laws to no Man, seeing every Bishop has full liberty in the Admi∣nistration of the Affairs of his Church, as he will answwer to Godl 1.147.

And how do both St. Cyprian and Firmilian resent Stephen's Extravagance, in threatning to refuse his Communion to those who had not the same Sentiments with himself about the Baptism of Hereticks? Let any Man read St. Cyprian's Epistle to Pompeius, and Firmilian's to St. Cyprianm 1.148, and he may have enough to this purpsoe. Would you have yet more? Then take a most memorable Acknowledgment from the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome. St. Cyprian had written to them, while the Bishop's Chair was vacant, and given them an account of his Resolutions about the Lapsed; those who had Sacrificed to the Heathen Idols in time of Per∣secution. Now, consider how they begin their answer to him. Altho, say they, a Mind that's without Checks of Con∣science, that's supported by the Vigour of Evangelical Discipline, and bears witness to it self, that it has squared its Actions by the Divine Commandments, useth to content it self with God, as its only Iudge; and neither seeks other Men's Approbations, nor fears their Accusations; yet they are worthy of doubled Praises, who, while they know their Conscience is subject to God only as its Iudge, do yet desire that their Administrations should have their Brethrens Comprobationsn 1.149. So clearly acknowledging St. Cyprian's (and by consequence, every Bishop's) Supremacy within his own District; and his Independency, or Non-Subordination, to any other Bishop; that even Rigaltius himself, in his Annotations on St. Cyprian, thô a Papist, confesses it. And no wonder; For,

4. By the Principles of those Times, every Bishop was Christ's Vicar within his own Districto 1.150; Had a Primacy in his own Churchp 1.151; Managed the Ballance of her Governmentq 1.152; Was, by his being Bishop, elevated to the sublime Top of the Priesthoodr 1.153; Had the Episcopal Authority in its Vigours 1.154; the Pre∣latick

Power in its Plenitudet 1.155; A Sublime and Divine Power of Governing the Churchu 1.156. And none could be called Bishop of Bishopsv 1.157. Every Bishop was Head of his own Churchvv 1.158; and she was built upon him in her Politick Capacityx 1.159. He, and he only, was her visible Iudgey 1.160; and he did not stand Sub∣ordinate to any visible Superiour. In short, The Constitution of every particular Church, in those Times, was a Well∣tempered Monarchy: The Bishop was the Monarch, and the Pres∣bytery was in Senate; all the Christians within his District depended on him for Government and Discipline, and he depended on no Man: So that I may fairly conclude this Point with that famous Testimony of St. Ierom's in his Epistle to Evagrius: Wherever a Bishop is, whether at Rome or Eugubium, Constantinople or Rhegium, Alexandria or Tani, he is of the same Merit, and the same Priesthood. Neither the Power of Riches, nor the Humility of Poverty, maketh a Bishop higher or lower; but they are all Successors of the Apostlesz 1.161. 'Tis true indeed, St. Ierom lived after the Cyprianic Age: But, I suppose, our Author will pretend to own his Authority as soon as any Father's in the point of Church-Government. Let me represent to you only one Principle more, which pre∣vailed in the Days of St. Cyprian: And that is,

THIRDLY, That whatever the High-Priest, among the Jews, was to the other Priests and Levites, &c. The Chri∣stian Bishop was the same to the Presbyters and Deacons, &c. and the same Honour and Obedience was due to him. This was a Principle which St. Cyprian frequently insisted on, and Rea∣soned from. Thus in his Third Epistle, directed to Rogatia∣nu, he tells him, That he had Divine Law and Warrant for Punishing his Rebellious and Undutiful Deacon. And then cites that Text, Deut. 17. 12. And the man that will do pre∣sumptuously,

and will not hearken unto the Priest, or unto the Iudge, even that man shall die: And all the people shall bear and fear, and do no more presumptuously. And confirms it farther, by shew∣ing how God punished Gorah, Datham, and Abiram, for Re∣belling against Aaro••, Numb. 16. 1. And when the Israe∣lites, weary of Samuel's Government, asked a King to judge them, The Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the People in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them: 1. Sam. 8. 7. Therefore, he gave them Saul for a Punish∣ment, &c. And when St. Paul was challenged for reviling God's High Priest, he excused himself, saying, He wist not that he was the High Priest: Had he known him to have been so, he would not have Treated him so, for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of they People: Act. 23. 4, 5. And.(as he goes further on) Our Lord Iesus Christ, Our God, King, and Iudge, to the very hour of his Passion paid suitable Honour to the Priests, thô they neither feared God, nor acknow∣ledged Christ: For when he had cleansed the L••per, he bade him go shew himself to the Priest, and offer his Gift: Matth. 8. 4. And at the very instant of his Passion, when he was beaten, as if he had answered irreverently to the High Priest, he uttered no Re∣proachful Thing against the Person of the Priest, but rather defen∣ded his own Innocence, saying, If I have spoken Evil, bear witness of the Evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? John 18. 22, 23. All which Things were done humbly and patiently lby him, that we might have a Patern of Patience and Humility proposed to us; for he taught us to give all dutiful Honour to true Priests, by behaving so towards false Priestsa 1.162.

Thus St. Cyprian Reason'd, and these were his Arguments for obliging all Men, Clergy as well as Laity, to Honour and Obey their Bishops. To the same purpose he wrote in his Fourth Epistle to Pomponius, concerning some Virgins and Deacons that lived Scandalously. Let them not think they can be saved, says he, if they will not obey the Bishops, seeing God says in Deuteronomy, and then he cites Deut. 17. 12b 1.163. He in∣sists on the same Arguments in his 59th Epistle directed to Cornelius, when he is giving him an account of the Rebellion, and Schismatical Practices of Fortunatus and Felicissimus, the one a Presbyter, and the other a Deaconc 1.164. He insists on them

over again, in his 66th Epistle to Florentius Papianusd 1.165. He insists largely on the Argument drawn from the Punishment inflicted on Corah and his Complices for Rebelling against Aaron; and makes it the same very Sin in Schismaticks, who separate from their lawful Bishop, in his 69th Epistle directed to Magnuse 1.166; and in his 73d Epistle, directed to Iubaianusf 1.167. And Firmilian also, St. Cyprian's Contemporary, insists on the same Argumentg 1.168. Indeed, the Names, Priest, Priesthood, Al∣tar, Sacrifice, &c. so much used those Times, are a preg∣nant Argument of the Notions Christians had then, of the Christian Hierarchy's being Copied from the Iewish. Neither was it a Notion newly started up in St. Cyprian's time, for we find it in express Terms in that notable Epistle written to the Corinthians by St. Clement Bishop of Rome, who was not only contemporary with the Apostles, but is by Name men∣tioned by St. Paul, as one of his Fellow-Labourers, whose Names are in the Book of LIfe, Philip. 4. 3. For he perswa∣ding those Corinthians to lay aside all Animosities and Schisma∣tical Dispositions, and to pursue and maintain Unity and Peace, above all things; proposes to them as a proper Expe∣dient for this, that every Man should keep his Order and Station; and then enumerates the several Subordinations un∣der the Old Testament, which sufficiently proves, That the Hierarchy was still preserved in the New. His Method of Reasoning, and the Design he had in hand to compose the Schisms that arose amongst the Corinthians, make this evident beyond all Contradiction, That a Bishop in the Christian Church was no less than the High Priest among the Iews, else he had not argued from the Precedents of the Temple to perswade them to Unity in the Church. The High Priest (saith he) has his proper Office, and the Priests have their proper Place or Station; and the Levites are tied to their proper Ministe∣ries; and the Layman is bound to his Laick Performancesh 1.169.

Having thus demonstrated, that these were three current and received Principles in St. Cyprian's time, viz. That a Bishop was the Principle of Unity to his Church, to all the

Christians within his District; That he was Supreme in his Church, and had no Earthly Ecclesiastical Superiour; and, That he was the same amongst Christians, which the High Priest was amongst the Iews: Let me try a little, if our Au∣thor's Definition of a Bishop, in St. Cyprian's time, can con∣sist with them. I am afraid, it can consist with none of them singly, much less with all these together.

I. Not with the first; for, if a Bishop, then, was the Prin∣ciple of Unity to a Church, in which there were many Presby∣ters; as Cyprian, e. g. was to the Church of Carthage, and Cornelius to the Church of Rome, and Fabius to the Church of Antioch, and Dionysius to the Church of Alexandria, &c. If thus it was, I say, then, to be sure, a Bishop was another thing than a meer single Presbyter of a single Parish in the Pres∣byterian sense: For, if a single Presbyter could have been the Principle of Unity to a Church in which there were, e. g. 46 single Presbyters, he must have been it as a single Presbyter, or as something else: Not as a single Presbyter, for then there should have been as many Principles of Unity in a Church, as there were single Presbyters; for Instance, There should have been 46 Principles of Unity in the Church of Rome: Which, besides that 'tis plainly Contradictory to the Notion of One Bishop, at once, in a Church; what is it else, than to make a Church such a Monster as may have 46 Heads? Than by so multi∣plying the Principles of Unity, to leave no Unity at all? Than, in stead of One Principle of Unity to an Organized Body, to set up 46 Principles of Division? Indeed, what is it else than the very Extract of Nonsense, and Cream of Contradiction? A single Presbyter then, if he could have been the Principle of Unity to such a Church, mut have been it, as something else than a meer single Presbyter. But what could that Something else have been? A Presbyterian Moderator? Not so neither; for by what Propriety of Speech can a Moderator of a Presbytery, as such, be called the Principle of Unity to a Church? How can he be called the Principle of Unity to a Church, who, as such, is neither Pastor, Head, nor Governour of a Church? Who, as such, has no direct, immediate, or formal Relation to a Church? Who, as such, is only the Chair-man, the Master-Speaker, not of the Church, but of the Presbytery? Nay, who may be such, and yet no Christian? For however inexpe∣dient

or indecent it may be, that an Heathen should, on occa∣sion, be the Moderator, i. e. the Master-Speaker of a Presby∣tery; yet it implies no Repugnancy to any Principle of Chri∣stianity. But however this is, 'tis certain, that, according to the Presbyterian Principles, (not the Moderator, but) the Presbytery is the Principle of Unity to the Church, or rather Churches, within the Bounds of that Presbytery. And, to do our Author Justice, he seems to have been sensible of this, as a I observed already: And therefore, he said not, If he (the Apologist) can prove, that we separate from our Pastors, or from the Moderator of the Presbytery; but, from our Pastors, or from the Presbytery with their Moderator. Neither,

2. Can our Author's Definition consist with the second Principle, viz. That every Bishop was Supreme in his Church, Independent, and not Subordinate, to any Ecclesiastical Supe∣riour on Earth. To have such a Supremacy, such an Inde∣pendency, such an Unaccountableness, is notoriously incon∣sistent with the Idea of either a single Presbyter, or a Presbyterian Moderator. How can it be consistent with the Idea of a single Presbyter acting in Parity with his Brethren Presbyters, that of 46, for Example, One should have a Primacy, a Supremacy, a Plenitude of Power, the Sublime and Divine Power of Gover∣ning the Church, an Unaccountable and Eminent Power, as St. Ie∣rom himself calls iti 1.170. And all the rest should be Accountable, and Subordinate to him? What is this but reconciling Contra∣dictions? Besides, the Independency of single Presbyters is noto∣riously inconsistent with the Presbyterian Scheme. 'Tis Inde∣pendency, not Presbytery. And as for the Presbyterian Moderator, In what sense can he be called Supreme, or Independent, or Un∣accountable? In what sense can he be said to be raised to the Sublime Top of the Priesthood? Or to have an Exors Potestas, an Unaccountable Power? Or to be Accountable to God only? Or to have the Sublime and Divine Power of Governing the Church? Is he, as such, raised to the Sublime Top of the Preist∣hood, who, as such, may be no Priest at all? For why may not a Ruling Elder be a Moderator? How can he be said to have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Unaccountable Power, who can be Voted out of his Chair with the same Breath with which he was Voted into it? How can he be said to be Accountable to God only, who is Accountable to the Presbytery? How can he be said to have the Sublime

and Divine Power of Governing the Church, who, as such, is no Church Governour? Has he a Supreme Power in a Society, who, as such, has no imaginable Iurisdiction over any one Member of that Society?

3. But what shall I say to the Consistency of our Author's Definition with the third Principle I named? Even no more than that I have proved it to have been one of St. Cyprian's, and one that was generally received in his time; and that I can refer it to our Author himself to Determine, Whether the High Priest of the Iews bore no higher Character than that of a single Presbyter, or a Presbyterian Moderator? And so I proceed to another Head of Arguments, which shall be,

FOURTHLY, To give you, in a more particular De∣tail, some of the Branches of the Episcopal Prerogative in St. Cyprian's time. And I think I shall do enough for my purpose, if I shall prove these three Things:

• I. That there were several considerable Acts of Power relating to the Government and Discipline of the Church, which belonged solely to the Bishop's seve∣ral Powers lodged in his Person, which he could manage by himself, and without the Concurrence of any other Church-Governour.
• II. That in every Thing relating to the Government and Discipline of the Church, he had a Negative over all the other Church-Governours within his District. And,
• III. That all the other Clergy-men within his District, Presbyters as well as others, were subject to his Au∣thority, and obnoxious to his Discipline and Juris∣diction.

I. I say, there were several considerable Acts of Power re∣lating to the Government and Discipline of the Church, which belonged solely to the Bishop; several Powers lodged in his Person, which he could manage by himself, and with∣out the Concurrence of any other Church-Governour. Take these for a Sample. And,

First, He had the sole Power of Confirmation; of imposing Hands on Christians, for the Reception of the Holy-Ghost, after Baptism. For this, we have St. Cyprian's most express Testimony in his Epistle to Iubaianus, where he tells, It was the Custom to offer such as were Baptized to the Bishops, that, by their Prayers, and the laying on of their Hands, they might receive the Holy-Ghost, and be Consummated by the Sign of our Lord, i. e. by the Sign of the Cross, as I take it: And he ex∣presly founds this Practice on the Paterm of St. Pater and St. Iohn, mentiond Acts 8. 14. &c.k 1.171 Firmilian is as ex∣press in his Epistle to Cyprian, saying in plain Lanugage, That the Bishops, who Govern the Church, possess the Power of Baptism, Confirmation, and Ordinationl 1.172. 'Tis true, he calls them Ma∣jores Natu, Elder: But that he meant Bishops, as distinguished from Presbyters, cannot be called into Question by any Man, who reads the whole Epistle, and considers his Stile all along; and withal, considers what a peculiar Interest, by the Prin∣ciples of these Times, the Bishop had in these three Acts he names. But whatever groundless Altercations there may be about his Testimony, as there can be none about St. Cprian's, so neither can there by any shadow of Pretext for any about Cornelius's, who, in his Epistle to Fabius, (so often mentioned before,) makes it an Argument of Novatianus his Incapacity of being a Bishop; that thô he was Baptized, yet he was not Confirmed by the Bishopm 1.173.

Secondly, He had the sole Power of Ordination, and that of whatsoever Clergy-men within his District. Ordinations could not be performed without him; but he could perform them Regularly, without the Concurrence of any other Church-Officer. This has been so frequently and so fully proved by Learned Men, that I need not insist much on it. Forbear∣ing therefore to adduce the Testimonies of such as lived after

St. Cyprian's time, such as Ambrose, Ierom, Chrysostom, &c. I shall confine my self to St. Cyprian, and his Contempora∣ries. Toi begin with St. Cyprian.

'Tis true, so humble and condescending he was, That when he was made Bishop, he resolved with himself to do nothing by himself, concerning the Publick Affairs of the Church, without consulting not only his Clergy, but his Peoplen 1.174. I call this his own free and voluntary Condescen∣tion: It wa a thing he was not bound to do by any Divine Prescript, or any Apostolical Tradition, or any Ecclesiastical Constitution. His very Words import so much, which you may see on the Margin. And yet, for all that, we find him not only in extraordinary Junctures, Ordaining without asking the Consent of his Clergy or People; but still insisting on it as the Right of all Bishops, and particularly his own, to Pro∣mote and Ordain Clergy-men, of whatsoever Rank, by him∣self, and without any Concurrence. Thus,

In his 38th Epistle, having Ordained Aurelius a Lector, he acquaints his Presbyters and Deacons with it, from the Place of his Retirement: Now consider how he begins his Letter. In all Clerical Ordinations, most dear Brethren, says he, I used to Consult you beforehand, and to examine the Manners and Merits of every one with common Adviceo 1.175. And then he proceeds to tell them, How, that notwithstanding that was his ordinary Method, a Rule he had observed for the most part; yet, for good Reasons he had not observed it in that Instance. In which Testimony, we have these Things evident: 1. That his Power was the same, as to all Ordinations, whether of Presbyters or others: For he speaks of them all indefinitely; In Clericis Ordinationibus. 2. That he used only to ask the Counsel and Advice of his Clergy, about the Manners and Merits of the Person he was to Ordain, but not their Concur∣rence in the Act of Ordination; not one word of that: On the contrary, That they used not to Concurr, fairly imported in the very Instance of Aurelius. 3. That it was intirely of his own Easiness and Condescension, that he Consulted them in the Matter: He USED to do it, but needed not have done it: He did it not in that very same Case. Which is a demon∣stration of the Truth of what I said before, viz. That his Resolutio••, which he had made when he entred to his

Bishoprick, was from his own Choice, and absolutely Free and Voluntary.

We have another remarkable Testimony to the same pur∣pose in his 41st Epistle, where he tells, that, Because of his Absence from Carthage, he had given a Deputation to ••ald∣nius and Herculanus, two Bishops; and to R••gatian••s and Numidicus, two of his Presbyters, to examine the Ages, Quali∣fications, and M••its, of some in Carthage, that he, whose Pro∣vince it was to promote Men to Ecclesiastical Offices, might be well informed about them, and Promote none but such as were Meek, Humble, and Worthyp 1.176 This, I say, is a most remarkable Testimony for our present Purpose; for he not only speaks indefinitely of all Ranks or Orders, without making Exceptions; but he speaks of himself in the Singular Number, as having the Power of Promoting them; and he founds that Power, and appropriates it to himself, upon his having the Care of the Church and her Government committed to him.

We have a third Testimony as pregnant as any of the for∣mer, in his 72d Epistle written to Stephen Bishop of Rome. For, representing to him what the Resolution of the African Bishops were concerning such Presbyters and Deacons as should return from a State of Schism, to the Communion of the Church, he discourses thus. By common Consent and A••thority, Dear Brother, we tell you further, That if any Presbyters or Deacons, who 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, a∣gainst our Lord's Institution—that such, if they shall return, shall only be admitted to Lay-Communion, &c.q 1.177 By which Te∣stimony, you may clearly see, 1. That all Ordinations of Presbyters, as well as Deacons, were performed by Bishops; by

True Bisho•••• 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 them∣selves oberved the Common Rule. They found their Ordina∣tions 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, fur∣ther yet,

Our Martyr's Practice was always suitable and correspon∣dent to these Principles. He not only Ordained Aurelius a Lector, as I have shewed, without either the Consent or Con∣currence of his Clergy; but also Saturus a Lector, and Opta∣tus 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 con∣cerning Aurelius and Celerinus: For there he tells his Presby∣ters, Deacons, and all his People, and tell them in an Autho∣ritative 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 itr 1.178.

And what can be more pat to this purpose, than that un∣controlable 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 A••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, consi∣dering that he had been Baptized while on the Bed of Sick∣ness. 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 Ordinations 1.179.

Neither do we read in all St. Cyprian's Works, or in any Monuments of those Times, of any Concurrence of Presby∣ters with Bishops, in any Ordinations, and far less, that ever Presbyters Ordain'd without a Bishop. 'Tis true, we read in St. Cyprian's 52d Epistle, that Novatus made Felicissimus a Dea∣con: And I read, that several Learned Men understand it so, as if he had Ordained himt 1.180. And Blo••del particularly, be∣cause Novatus was nothing but a Presbyter, con••ludes, that this was a notable Instance of the Power of Presbyters in Ordi∣nations. But when one reads the whole Passage, as St. Cy∣prian hath it, and ponders all Things duly, he cannot but think it strange, that ever that Fancy should have been enter∣tained: 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 P••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 Al∣lowanceu 1.181. 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 Felicissi∣mus Ordain'd a Deacon, thô himself did not Ordain him. ('Tis probable he was Ordained by some Neighbouring Bishop, St. Cy∣prian being then in his Secession.) And 'tis 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 it••s Greatness, had the Pre••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 Novatianusv 1.182. Now 'tis certain that not Novatus, but Three Bishops, Ordained Novatianus; and, by consequence, that St. Cyprian never meant that Novatus Ordain'd Felicissi••us. This is irre••ragable. But then, sup∣pose the worst; Suppose Novatus had really Ordained Felicis∣simus, what stress is to be laid on the Example of a Schisma∣tick? Especially when what he did was done Schismatically? Antonianus asked of St. Cyprian, what was Novatianus his He∣resie? And Cyprian answered, It was no matter what he taught, seeing he taught in Schismvv 1.183 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 Practi∣sing suitably, was exactly agreeable to the Second of the Ca∣nons commonly called of the Apostles; which is, Let a Presby∣ter be Ordained by One Bishop, as likewise a Deacon and the rest of the Clergyx 1.184. A Canon, without doubt, universally recei∣ved then, as Beveregius has fully proved; and a Canon highly agreeable with the then current Principles, which I have in∣sisted 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 pro∣mote and give Commissions to all Inferiour Officers? 'Tis one of the Rights of Majesty, and one as intrinsick and unal••enable, or incommunicable, as any. 'Tis true, a good many Years af∣ter

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. Cy∣prian's time; and it was for new emergent Reasons; That Ordinations might be performed more deliberately, or with the greater Solemnity, or so; but 'tis evident, that nothing of the substantial Validity of the Orders were to depend upon it. And so much, at present, for the Bishop's Power of Ordination. But this is not all. For,

Thirdly, He had full Power, without asking the Consent or Concurrence of either Clergy or People, to settle Presbyters within his District. Of this, we have a most remarkable Instance of St. Cyprian's planting Namidicus a Presbyter of the City of Carthage: Our Martyr wrote to his Presbyters, Deacons, and People, to receive him as such, (probably he had been Ordained before,) and there was no more of it: It was instantly doney 1.185. As we learn from the very next Epi∣stlez 1.186, where we find the same Namidicus, as a Presbyter of Carthage, receiving a Commission for a Deputation to oversee such and such Things in St. Cyprian's absence. So negligent, shall I say? Or so ignorant was St. Cyprian of Christ's Testa∣ment, at least of his Leaving, in it, to his People, by way of Legacy, a Right, a Grant, a Priviledge, of Cho••sing their own Ministers! What a Stranger has he been to all the Analo∣gies and Principles of Presbyterian Government! But I pro∣ceed.

Fourthly, In St. Cyprian's time, the Bishop had the disposal of all the Revenues of the Church. All the Churches Incomes, then, were Oblations, and Charitable Contributions. The Civil Ma∣gistrate was Heathen, and treated her commonly with Per∣secutions, never with Encouragements. Now, the Bishop, I say, had the full Power of disposing of these Contributions and Oblations.

In the first place, he had his own Quantitas Propria, His proper Portion; and twas, no doubt, a considerable One. 'Tis commonly reckoned to have been the Third. The other Two belonged to the Clergy and the Poor; but so, as to be dispensed by the Bishop.

That he had his own Portion, and that a Liberal One, is evident from his 7th Epistle; For there he tells how, before he retired, he gave the Trust of it to Rogatianus, one of his Presbyters, ordering that if there were any necessitous Stran∣gers at Carthage, they should have Maintenance out of it.a 1.187. And it is observable, that when St. Cyprian gives an account of Fortunatianus, who had been Bishop of Assurae, but had for∣feited by Sacrificing in time of Persecu••ion, and yet was earnest for all that to retain his Bishoprick; he says expresly, that it was upon the account of the Perquisites, and not from any Love to Religionb 1.188. And it is not to be doubted, that the same Reason moved Basilides to be so much concerned for the recovery of his Bishoprick, after he had forfeited it alsoc 1.189 Indeed, the Bishop's proper Portion was setled on him by the 40th of the Apostolic Canons.

And that he had the disposal of the rest, particularly that which belonged to the Clergy, is as plain. For, in his 41st Epistle, he makes it an aggravation of Felicissimus's Guilt, that, contrary to the Duty which he owed to his Bishop, he should have made such a Clutter, about the Division of the Contributions. And on the other hand he praises the Dutifulness of others, who would not follow F••licissimus his bad Example, but con∣tinued in the Unity of the Church, and were satisfied to take their Shares, as the Bishop should please to dispense themd 1.190. And it is a most remarkable Instance of this his Power, which we have in the aforementioned Case of Aurelius and Celerinus; for thô he promoted them only to the Degree of Lectors, yet he Entituled them to the Maintenance of Presbyters.e 1.191. And as for that part that belonged to the Poor, his Power in the Di∣stribution of it is so evident from his Fifth and Forty first Epi∣stles, that I need not insist upon it. Indeed, this Power was expresly asserted to them by the Thirty eighth and Forty fi••st of

the Apostolick Canonsf 1.192. And we find Bishops in Possession of it long before St. Cyprian's time; as is evident from Iustin Mar∣tyr's second Apology, not far from the end. Not now to mention that it seems fairly to be founded on express Scrip∣tureg 1.193. Indeed,

Fifthly, He seems to have had a Power of imposing Charitable Contributions on all the Christians within his District, for the Relief of Distressed Strangers, whether Captives, Prisoners, or condemn'd to the Mines or Galleys, &c. Of this Power, we have famous Instances in his 62d and 78th Epistles. You may Consult them at your Leasure. And long before St. Cy∣prian's time, Soter Bishop of Rome, as the Venerable Diony∣sius Bishop of Corinth, (cited for it by Eusebius,) tells us, Ma∣naged this Power to excellent purpose, as his Predecessors, from the Apostles times had done before him. Take his own Words, for he was a very ancient Father, having flourished about an Hundred Years before St. Cyprian. They are in an Epistle of his to the Church of Rome, in which he thus be∣speaks them. This has been your Custom from the beginning, (i. e. ever since the Church of Rome was planted,) to do mani∣fold good Offices to the Brethren, and send Supplies to most Chur∣ches in most Cities, for sweetning their Poverty, and refreshing those that are Condemned to the Mines. You, Romans, observe the Custom of the Romans handed down to you by your Fathers; which Custom, your blessed Bishop Soter has not only observed, but improved, &c.h 1.194 What can be more clear than it is from these Words, That Soter, as Bishop of Rome, had the chief Ma∣nagement of the Charitable Contributions, imposing them, and disposing of them for the Relief of the Afflicted Christians of whatsoever Church? And now that I have gone higher than St. Cyprian's time, (thô it was not necessary for my main Argument; and to make use of it, might swell this Letter to too great a Bulk;) Let me mention another Power, which Tertu••lian (who lived before St. Cyprian also) in plain Terms appropriates to the Bish••p. A considerable Power, a Power that is a considerable Argument of the Episcopal Sovereignty. And it is,

Sixthly, The Power of Indicting Solemn Fasts, as oc∣casion required, to all the Christians within his District. You have his Words, plain and home, upon the Mar∣gini 1.195

Sev••nthly, A Bishop in St. Cyprian's time, (for now I return to it,) as such, had the sole Power of Convocating his Presby∣ters and Deacons; all those of his Clergy and People, who either sat with him, or standing gave their Suffrages, as they were ask'd, about any thing relating to the Church. All Learned Men (even Spanhemius himself, our Author's diligent Searcher into Antiquity,) confesses this. Indeed, this was a Point on which the Unity of the Church did so much depend, that it could not but be a necessary Branch of his Prerogative, who was the Principle of Unity to, and was intrusted with, the Supreme Government of the Church. And, agreeably, we find Cornelius accounting about it in an Epistle to Cyprian. For there he tells, how the Presbyter and Confessors, who had sided with Novatianus, turning sensible of their Error, came (not streight to himself, for it seems they had not the confi∣dence to do that, or rather, they would not have been al∣lowed that freedom so suddenly; but) to his Presbyters, ac∣knowledging 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 Maca∣rius, being allowed to appear, made their Acknowledgments and humble Addresses; and then, how after they were recei∣ved 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 Ca∣tholick Church; and that they were not ignorant, that, as there was but One God, One Christ our Saviour, and One Holy∣••host; so there ought to be only One Bishop in a Catholick

Churchk 1.196. 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 Cor∣nalius 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. Cy∣prian determined from the beginning of his Episcopacy, was meerly the effect of his own Choice, and Arbitrary Conde∣scension, 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 Churchl 1.197.

But you may say, Did not the Roman Presbytery Conveen, during the Vac••••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, 'Tis 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 Au∣thority: And therefore we find, when he retired, he left a

Delegated Power with his Presbyters and Deacons, or an Al∣lowance, 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 ownm 1.198. Which not only imports, that they had di∣stinct Offices from his, but also, in express Terms, settles a Delegation on them. He bespeaks them after the same man∣ner in his 12th Epistlen 1.199. And more Authoritatively yet, Ep. 14. where he not only Exhorts, but Commands them to perform the Office of Vicars to himo 1.200. But then, how warmly he re••ented it, when some of them ventured beyond the Li∣mits 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 de∣termining 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 N••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 Felicis∣simus and Augendus, and all that should joyn themselves to that Faction and Conspiracyp 1.201. Which Delegation was accor∣dingly 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 Mar∣tyrq 1.202. 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 consi∣dering that more, perhaps, may be discovered in the Pro∣secution 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 Ab∣solved nor Restored to the Communion of the Church; no Ecclesiastical Law could be made, nor Rescinded, nor Di∣spensed with, without him. In short, all Ecclesiastical Disci∣pline 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 Per∣sons are admitted into the Church: That no Man could be Baptized without the Bishop's Consent, has as much Evi∣dence 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 Mar••yrdom, where he says, Bishops, by our Lord's Allowance, give the first Baptism to Believersr 1.203. Let us turn over to Ep. 73. in which he insists directly to this purpose. The Question was, Whe∣ther 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 acknow∣ledged Principles. Now consider his Argument, I shall give it in his own Words as near as I can Translate them. 'Tis 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 de∣monstrating the Original of Unity,) that Power, That whatso∣ever 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 Insti∣tution: 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 War∣rant 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 them∣selves a Priviledge of Sacrificing against Moses and Aaron the Priest, and they were Punished for it, because it was unla••fuls 1.204. Thus St. Cyprian argued; and the force of his Argument lies visibly in this, That Baptism performed by Hereticks or Schisma∣ticks 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 Fortuna∣tus Bishop of Thuraboris, another of St. Cyprian's Contempo∣raries, 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 Bapti∣zing to Bishops, and not to Hereticks, &c.t 1.205 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 Bap∣tism, 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 AUTHORITYu 1.206. And before him, we have the Apo∣stolical 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 Bishopv 1.207.

2. A Bishop, in St. Cyprian's time, had as much Power about the Holy Eucharist: No Presbyter within his District could Ad∣minister it without his Leave, or against his Interdict. St. Cy∣prian'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 re∣sents 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 purposevv 1.208. 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 al∣lowance. 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 Di∣vine 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 Decei∣ving Words, and give the Communion, &c.x 1.209

And, 'tis a Passage very remarkable to this purpose, which we read in an Epistle of Dionysi••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 Per••eve∣rance 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 perswa∣ded he should not die till he should be Reconciled to the Church: And how the Presbyter being sick also, sent the Sa∣crament to him: But by what Right or Authority? By Dio∣nysius 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.y 1.210 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 Celebra∣ted by the Bishop, or by his Authority* 1.211.

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 Atro∣cious Guilt of Schism, and the forlorn Condition of Schis∣maticks; 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 Priest∣hood by God's Vouchsafement and Appointment: They were forth∣with punished in a miraculous manner; neither could their Sacrifi∣ces be Valid or Profitable, being offered Unlawfully and Irreligiously, and against the Divine Ordinance.—And yet these Men had made no Schism: They had not departed from the Tabernacle, nor rai∣sed another Altar, &c. which now the Schismaticks do, (mean∣ing the Novatians,) who dividing the Church, and rebelling against Christ's Peace and Unity, are bold to Constitute an [Epi∣scopal] Chair, and assume to themselves a Primacy, an Episcopal Authority, and a POWER OF BAPTIZING and OFFERING, that is, Celebrating the Holy Eucharist. What can be more plain than 'tis here, That no Sacraments could be Administred but in dependance on the Bishopa 1.212? Indeed,

3. Considering that, as I have fully proved, a Bishop was, then, the Principle of Unity to the Church; that he was Chief Governour of the Church; and that, by consequence, the Supreme Power of the Keys could not but belong to him: Considering that the Church was a Visible Society; that he was the Visible Head of that Visible Society; and, by consequence, that it belonged to him as such, to take care that Society might suffer no Detriment: Considering these Things, I say, it was highly reasonable, that he should have the Chief Power of Dispensing the Sacraments: Such a Power, as that neither might be dispensed without him. What can be more Detrimental to a Society, especially such a Society as a Christian Church, than admitting Unworthy Persons to the Priviledges of it? Or al∣lowing them to continue in it? Or restoring them to their Mem∣bership in the Society, after they have been justly thrust from it, without considering whether they have given any Eviden∣ces of a serious Reformation? And who so proper to judge of these Matters, as the Chief Governour of the Society? And now,

Having thus made it evident, that a Bishop, in St. Cyprian's time, had a Negative over all other Church-Officers within his District, in the grand Concern of Dispensing both Sacra∣ments; and that neither could be Administred without him, or against his Authority, I might fairly supersede the trouble of making either a Minute or a laborious Demonstration of his Sovereign Interest in the Acts of Excommunication, or injoyning Penances, or reconciling Penitents, or making, or rescinding, or dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws or Canons; in a word, in every thing relating to the Government or Discipline of the Church. All these Acts depend upon the Sacraments. His Negative therefore, about the Dispensation of the Sacraments, had been in vain, and to no purpose, if he had not had a Negative likewise about all these Acts. Besides,

you will not readily say, I think, that he could have had a Greater Trust by having a Negative, in any other Matter than in the Dispensing of the Sacraments. Having that, therefore, he might well be intrusted with a Negative in all other Things, either of equal (if any such can be imagined) or lesser Impor∣tance on which, the Order, the Subsistence, the Unity, the Peace, the Purity, the Prosperity, or whatsoever Interest of the Church could any way depend. Yet that I may give you all possible satisfaction, I shall proceed a little further, and give you, by way of Historical Deduction, such an account of Powers lodged, e. g. in St. Cyprian's Person, as you may fairly judge thereby, concerning the Preheminences of Bishops in his Time.

The most current Account we have about him, is, that he was not Converted to Christianity, at least, not Baptized, till the Year 246. That he was Ordain'd a Presbyter, Anno 247; and Bishop of Carthage, Anno 248. Chronologists do generally agree in this last Step of his Preferment. Now, as we learn both from himself, and from Pontius his Deacon, some of the Carthaginian Clergy were mighty Enemies to his Promotiona 1.213. Belike, they took it ill, that he, so lately con∣verted to the Faith, so lately made a Presbyter, should have been preferred to themselves. However it was, certain it is, as I said, that they appeared against him with all their might and main. But the People were so Generally and so Zea∣lously for him, to have him their Bishop, that these his Ene∣mies were overpowered. Made Bishop he was; and he was a Person so well Qualified, so Eminent in every Virtue, and withal so Strict and Cautious in his Life and Government, after he was made Bishop, that it was not easie for the Muti∣neers to wreck their Malice on him: But this was so far from softening them, and bringing them to a better temper, that, on the contrary, it imbittered them the more, and made them the more watchful of all Opportunities to breed him Troubles, and disturb his Government. At last, they catch'd hold of one, and that a very dangerous one, in the time of the Decian Persecution.

This Persecution beginning towards the end of the Year 249, and lasting for a full Year; coming on the Church, after a lo••g Peace, with a surprizing Violence, had very

sad Effects. Vast numbers turned Apostates, Renouncing the Holy Faith, and Sacrificing to the Heathen Idols: And Cy∣prian himself, commanded by God, had retired from Carthage till there should be some Relentment of the Fury of the Per∣secution. Here, I say, his subtle Enemies found their so long wished Opportunity: For, the Lapsed, so soon as the Hazard was over, resumed their Christian Profession, and turned mighty forward, if not furious, to be restored to the Com∣munion of the Church. 'Thô they knew full well, that they were bound by the Canons to have continued, for a long time, in the state of Penitents; yet they thought their Num∣bers, and perhaps their Qualities, might overpower the Ca∣nons, and claim Indulgences and Dispensations. With them struck in those Clergy-men, who had still retained the old Grudges against St. Cyprian's Promotion, encouraging their Presumptions. They knew, he was a Man of Principles, and had a mighty Zeal for the real Interests of Christianity; and, by consequence, that he would stand Resolutely by the Canons of the Church, and be clear, that the Lapsed should perfect their Terms of Penance: They saw the Eagerness of the Lapsed to be sooner reconciled, than the Canons allowed: They resolved therefore to fall in with them, thinking that thereby they should effectually put a Thorn in his Foot; they should enflame the Lapsed, and their Relations, per∣chance, the great Body of the People against him. But this was not all.

It was not enough for them themselves to encourage the Lapsed in their Petulancies: The Bishops Prelation over Pres∣byters was then so Notorious, that, as malicious as they were, they had not Impudence enough to set up theirs in opposition to his Authority, and Reconcile the Lapsed to the Church, meerly upon the score of their own Credit, against his Will and Orders; and therefore, they fell upon another Project. If it was possible for any other to stand up against the Bishops Authority, it was that of the Martyrs and Confessors. These, for their Faith and Patience; their fervent Zeal, and fragrant Graces; their glorious Courage, and good Example; that they might Persevere themselves, and others might be encou∣raged to follow their Patern; were held in mighty Reputa∣tion. They were reputed as dearer to God, and in a closer

Communion with him, and nearer Approximation to him, than Christians of the common size: And their Intercessions had been in use of being much regarded in former Persecu∣tions. These, therefore, as the only Persons whose Credit could be feasibly put in the Ballance with the Bishops Autho∣rity, the Holy Man's Supplanters instigated to espouse the Quarrel of the Lapsed; to become their Patrons, for having themselves Absolved against the Bishop's Resolutions. And truly, some of them were so far wrought upon, as to turn Zealous for it: And, armed with their Authority, these dis∣contented Presbyters adventured to Absolve and Lapsed, and receive them to the Sacrament, without the Bishop's Allow∣ance. Now consider what followed, and speak your Con∣science, and tell me, if St. Cyprian was not more than either Single Presbyter, or Presbyterian Moderator.

Thô he was one of the mildest and most humble Men that ever lived; yet, so soon as this was told him, where he was, in his Retirement, he was not a little alarm'd: The Practice was surprizing, and the Presumption, new, as well as bold: The like had never been done before in any Christian Church: And such preposterous Methods clearly tended to shake all the Foundations of Order and good Discipline: And therefore he thought it high time for him, if he could, to give the Check to such irregular and unexampled Methods. In short, he drew his Pen, and wrote Three notable Epistles; one to the Martyrs and Confessors; Another to his Clergy; and a third to his Peopl••: Insisting, in each of them, upon the Novelty and Unwarrantableness of the Course was taken; the Disho∣nours and Indignities were done himself by it; and the great Mischiefs and fatal Consequences might, nay would, un∣avoidably follow upon it, if it were not forborn. More particularly,

In that to the Martyrs and Confessors, he told them, That his Episcopal Care, and the Fear of God, compelled him to Admo∣nish them, That, as they had devoutly and couragiously kept the Faith, so they ought, suitably, to be observant of Christ's Holy Laws and Discipline: That, as it became all Christ's Soldiers to obey their General's Commands; so it was their Duty, in a special manner, to be Examples to others: That he had thought, the Pres∣byters and Deacons, who were with them, might have taught them

so much: But that now, to his extream Grief, he understood, they had been so far from doing that; that, on the contrary, some of them, especially some Presbyters, neither minding the Fear of God, nor the Honour of their Bishop, had industriously misled them. He complain'd mightily of the Presumption of such Presbyters, that against all Law and Reason, they should have dared to Reconcile the Lapsed without his Consent. That herein they were more Cri∣minal than the Lapsers themselves: That it was somewhat Excu∣sable in the Lapsed to be earnest for an Absolution; considering the uncomfortable State they were in, so long as they were denied the Communion of the Church: But it was the Duty of Office-bearers in the Church to do nothing rashly, lest, in stead of Pastors, they should prove Worriers of the Flock, &c. And then he told these Martyrs and Confessors, how far their Priviledges reached: All they could do, was, by way of humble Supplication, to Peti∣tion the Bishop for a Relaxation of the Rules of Discipline: But they had neither Power to Command him, nor Grant Indulgences without himb 1.214. Indeed, this he told them frequently, and that they went beyond their Line if they ventured any fur∣therc 1.215.

In that to his Presbyters and Deacons, he wrote in a yet more resenting Strain. He told them, He had long kept his Patience, and held his Peace; but their immoderate Presumption and Temerity would suffer him no longer to be silent. For what a dreadful Prospect, says he, must we have of the Divine Ven∣g••••nce,

when some Presbyters, neither mindful of the Gospel, nor their own Stations, nor regarding the future Iudgments of God, nor the Bishop, who, for the time, is set over them; dare attempt what was never attempted before, under any of my Predecessors, namely, so to Affront and Contem•••• their Bishop, as to assume all to themselves? And then he proceeds to tell them, how he could overlook and bear with the Indignity done to his Episcopal Autho∣rity, if there were no more in it: But the course they followed was so wicked; they were so injurious to the Lapsed whom they presumed to Reconcile so Uncaononically; their Pride and Popularity were so apparent in their Method; it was such a Crime, so to Expose the Martyrs to Envy, and set them at Variance with their Bishop, &c. that he could ••tifle it no longer. In short, all over the Epistle he wrote like a Bishop, and concluded it with a Peremptory Threatning of a present Suspension from the Exercise of their Office, and then an Infliction of further Censures when he should re∣turn from his Retirement, if they should Persevere in such a Lawless Coursed 1.216.

In that to his People, he proceeded on the ••ame Princi∣ples; condemned these Presbyters, who had acted so disor∣derly, not reserving to the Bishop the Honour of his Chair and Priesthood: Told them, That those Presbyters ought to have taught the People otherwise; Laid to their Charge the Affecta∣tion of Popularity; and required such of the People as had not fallen, to take Pains upon the Lapsed; to try to bring

them to a better Temper; to perswade them to hearken to his Counsel, and wait his Return, &c.e 1.217

Here were three Epistles written, I think, in plain Prela∣tick Stile; sure, neither in the Stile of Single Presbyter, nor Presbyterian Moderator: Especially if we consider the very next, written to his Presbyters and Deacons upon the same Principles, still. He had written to them several times be∣fore from the Place of his Retirement, but had received no Answer from them. Now consider how he Resents this, and, Resenting it, asserts his own Episcopal Authority; his own Sovereign Power in Ecclesiastick Matters: For thus he be∣gins; I wonder, dear Brethren, that you have returned no An∣swers to the many Letters I have sent you; especially considering, that now, in my Retirement, you ought to inform me of every thing that happens; that so I may, advisedly and deliberately, give Orders concerning the Affairs of the Churchf 1.218. Let any Man lay these four Letters together, and weigh them impartially, and then let him judge if St. Cyprian wrote in the Stile of Parity, if he claim'd not a Sovereign Power, a Negative, to himself, over all the Christians, Presbyters as well as others, living within his District.

But did not Cyprian shew too much Zeal in this Cause? Pos∣sibly, he attempted to stretch his Power a little too far; as after∣wards many did: He was a Holy and Meek Man, but such may be a little too High. So I read, indeed, in a late Bookg 1.219. But it seems, the Author has found himself very sore put to it when he said so: For how can one not be fore put to it, when he cannot escape but by seeking for Refuge in a Reconcilia∣tion between Pride and Patience, Superciliousness and Self∣denial, Huffyness and Humility, Carnal Height and Chri∣stian Holiness? But to let this pass,

Had that Author any solid Ground for saying so? Or ra∣ther, had it been possible for him to have said so, had he had but an ordinary Acquaintance with St. Cyprian, or his Epistles? Charge Pride on the Humble Cyprian! Cyprian, who was so very Humble, that from the Conscience of his own Nothing∣ness, he has still been looked upon as a Patern of Humility! Cyprian, whose Humility would not allow him almost to speak in the Stile of Authority, even to Female Laicksh 1.220! Cyprian, who was perswaded, that God would hear none but the Humble and Quieti 1.221! Cyprian, who believed, that none could be a Christian, and withal, be Proud and Haughtyk 1.222! Who insisted on his own Humility in that very Epistle, for which that Author charges him with Pridel 1.223! Who, if in any thing, Gloried most in his Humble and Bashful Modestym 1.224! Who, when accused of Pride, could Appeal not only to all Christians, but even to the Heathen Infidels, as Witnesses of his Innocencen 1.225! Cyprian, who had this Great Testimony from some of his Contemporaries, That he was the Greatest Preacher, the Most Eloquent Orator, the Wisest in Counsel, the Simplest in Patience, the Most Charitable in Alms, the Holiest in Abstinence, the Hum∣blest in Obligingness, and the Most Innocent in every Good Actiono 1.226! And from others, That he had a Candid and a Blessed Breast! &c.P 1.227 In a word, Cyprian, whose Humility was such, that, if we may believe his Deacon Pontius, He fled and lurk'd when they were going to make him a Bishopq 1.228! Such, that when St. Augustine, many years after, was pressed with his Autho∣rity, he came off with this, The Authority of Cyprian doth

not fright me, because the Humility of Cyprian encourages mer 1.229! Such a Person was Cyprian; And yet to Proud was he, for∣sooth, for doing his Duty; for asserting his Episcopal Autho∣rity, when most undutifully trampled on by his presuming Presbyters.

What I have said, methinks, might be enough in all con∣science, for defeating for ever that Uncharitable, shall I say, or Ignorant Suggestion, That it was Pride, perhaps, that prompted Cyprian to write so Magisterially to the Carthagi∣nian Presbyters; yet, because a farther Discussion of it may contribute not a little for clearing up the Bishop's Negative, in St. Cyprian's time, I shall not grudge to give it you.

St. Cyprian had three sorts of People to deal with in that Controversie, which bred him so much Trouble. He had the Lapsed themselves; the Martyrs and Confessors; and these Presbyters and Deacons, who had encroached so much on his Episcopal Authority.

I am apt to think, the Author himself, with whom I have now to do, will not be shy to grant, That St. Cyprian, with∣out incurring the Reputation of either Proud or Presumptuous, might have chided the Lapsed, as we find he did: They had Cowardly renounced their Christianity, to save their Lives and Fortunes; and the Canons subjected them to a strict and a long Penance for it: And I think, without the imputation of either Height or Humour, one in St. Cyprian's Station might have put them in mind of the Respect they owed to the Canons of the Church, and the Governours of it. Indeed, all the Lapsed were not engaged in the disorderly Course. There were some of them who were sensible of their Duty, and subjected themselves to their Bishop, resolving to wait his time, and intirely to depend upon him for their Absolution, as we learn from his 33d Epistle.

His Difficulty was greater with the Martyrs and Confessors, who appeared as Patrons to the Prejudicating Lapsed; but neither need I insist on that, nor how he conquered them in point of Right and Argument: For, this Author told Dr. Stilling fleet, He was wholly out of the way in medling with that Matter, seeing none ever imagined that every Martyr had Church Power. Thô I must tell you, Sir, That whoso reads St. Cyprian's Works, and particularly observes the State and

Management of this whole Controversie about the Lapsed, cannot but be convinced, that the Reputation and Autho∣rity of Martyrs and Confessors, made a far greater Figure in it, than the Reputation or Authority of Presbyters. To come therefore to that which is the main Point with this Author,

Let us try, if St. Cyprian stretch'd his Power too far in his Treatment of the Presbyters, who appeared against him in this Controversie. Consider the following Steps, and then judge.

I. Consider that St. Cyprian doth not fall a buffing or hecto∣ring, or running them down by Noise or Clamour. No,

He Reasons the Case with them, and Reasons all along from known and received Principles. He tells them plainly in∣deed. That in Presuming as they had done, they had for∣gotten both the Gospel, and their own Station: That he was their Superiour: That they did not pay him the Honour that was due to his Chair and Character: That the like had never been attempted before by Presbyters, under any of his Predecessor-Bishops: That it was a Factious, Selfish Tem∣per, and too great Love of Popularity that prompted them to Measures so in no wise Presidented: That he knew the Secret of the Matter, and that it was the old Grudge against his being preferred to the Bishoprick that byass'd them to their Insolencies: That is belonged to him as having the Chief Power of the Keys, as being Bishop, i. e. as having the visible Sovereignty in Church Matters, to straiten or slacken the Sinews of Discipline; to prolong or shorten the Cour∣ses of Penance; to grant Absolutions, and reconcile Peni∣tents, &c. That such Presumptions were Encroachments upon the very Foundations of the Church, to the Subver∣sion whereof, their pretending to any Power, in opposi∣tion to the Bishops, tended: In short, That such Practices were against Christ's Institution, and the Analogies of Go∣vernment, and all the Laws of Order, Peace and Unity: And they deserved the sharpest Censures for them.

These, I say, are a Sample of the Arguments St. Cyprian in∣sisted on against those Presbyters; and most of them were founded on Matter of Fact: And now, suppose St. Cyprian had

had considerable Doses of Pride, yet if you will but allow him, withall, to have had some Grains of Common Sense or Honesty, can you so much as imagine he could have used such Arguments, if they had wanted Foundation? Would he not have been ashamed to have used them, if he, and not his Presbyters, had been guilty of the Usurpations he was Con∣demning? But what needs more? Have I not fully proved already, That a Bishop, in St. Cyprian's time, was the Prin∣ciple of Unity to all the Christians, Presbyters as well as others, within his District? And that he was a Sovereign and Peerless Governour of the Church which he Ruled. And were not all his Reas••nings founded on these Principles? But this is not all; for,

2. Consider that they were not all the Presbyters of Car∣thage, who were engaged in the Quarrel. No: R••gatianus, Britius, Numidicus, and, perhaps, many more, whose Names are not trasmited to us, would never joyn with those of the Faction; but still continued in their Duty to St. Cyprian. And can we think, they would not have joyned with their Bre∣thren for the Maintenance of their own Rights and Privi∣ledges, if Cyprian had been the Usurper? If he had been Claiming a Sovereign Power, without any Pretence of Right to it? If he had been driving at a Prelacy, when the Govern∣ment of the Church belonged to Presbyters acting in Parity? We learn from St. Cyprian▪ himself, That, in those Times, it was a mighty Wickedness for Men to part tamely with their Rights and Powers in Divine Matters.s 1.230 And can we think, that Ro∣gatianus, B••itius, and Numidicus, were ignorant of this? Or, supposing that should have had small Weight with them, is Power such a gustless Thing, that Men will easily part with it without any Reason? But to go on.

3. Even those very Presbyters and Deacons of the Faction came once to something like a Dutiful Submission in the Mat∣ter. They lower'd their Sails, and began to wave Apologies, and knit Excuses for what they had done. They endeavou∣red to put a fair Face upon the foul Steps they had made: They wrote to Cyprian, That they had done what they could to bridle the Heats of the Lapsed, and oblige them to con∣tinue

in their Penances, till his Return from his Retirement; but that they were so Ungovernable and Stiff, and urged a present Absolution so eagerly and irresistibly, that they were forced, in a manner, to comply with their Humours: But now seeing they found, that he, their Bishop, was so much displeased with what they had done, they asked a FORM from him, i. e. his Will and Pleasure in the Matter.t 1.231 And now, let any Man consider, whether St. Cyprian or these Presbyters had been in the Wrong before? Whether He or They had acted beyond their Lines? But I have more to tell you: For,

4. These Presbyters, who had thus transgressed the Bounds of their Station, were generally Condemn'd for it, by their Brethren Presbyters, all the World over: At least, we have a most remarkable Instance in the Presbyters of Rom••. Take it thus.

St. Cyprian being a Wise and Watchful, as well as an Holy and Humble Prelate; one, who had still before his Eyes th•• Conservation of the Order, the Peace, and the Unity of the Church Catholick; and perceiving that the Controversie concerning the Restitution of the Lapsed, might be of bad Influence on those great Interests, if not prudently deter∣mined; thought fit to acquaint his Brethren of the Episcopal Colledge with it, and ask their Sentiments about it: And be∣cause there was no Bishop then at Rome, he wrote to the Pres∣byters and Deacons, the Roman Presbytery. The Epistle is the 20th in Number. In which he deduced the whole Mat∣ter to them, and told them particularly, how he had Exerted his Episcopal Authority, in its Vigour, against such of his Presbyters as, without his Leave, had boldly and presump∣tuously Absolved the Lapsed, and given them the Sacrament.u 1.232 Now consider their Return to him: You have it in the 30th Epistle.

They begin with the Acknowledgment of his Supream and Unaccountable Power within his own District, which I ob∣served beforev 1.233: They impute it to his Modesty and Caution, (not to his Pride and Fetulancy,) that he had been pleased to communicate his Measures to them: They approve the Course he had taken with the Lapsed: They compare him to the Master of a Ship, sitting at the Helm, who, if he steers not right, and keeps not a steddy Course, especially in a Storm, en∣dangers the Ship, and runs her upon Rocks or Shelves: And I think, the Master of a Ship doth not act in Parity with the rest of the Mariners. And further, They compare those who, at that time, endeavoured to interrupt the Course of his Discipline, Presbyters as well as others, to the Tumbling Waves, striving to shake the Master from the Helm, and ex∣pose all to the Hazards of Shipwrack. In plain Terms, they condemn the Course of Reconciling the Lapsed, so Unduti∣fully and Rebelliously. As for themselves, they tell him, (and pray take notice of it,) That, wanting a Bishop, they could define nothing in the Matter: They tell him, I say, That since the Death of Fabianus of most Noble Memory, through the Difficulties of the Times, and the Encumbrances of their Affairs, they had not got a Bishop Constituted; who only could define in these Matters, and determine in the Case of the Lapsed with AUTHORITY and Counselvv 1.234 But withal, they tell him, That, for their parts, they were extreamly well pleased with the Course he had taken; namely, That he had resolved to do nothing rashly, to take no sudden Resolutions in a Mat∣ter of such Consequence; but to wait till God should grant him opportunity of Treating about it with others, and deter∣mining with common Advice in such a ticklish Casex 1.235: Where observe by the way, That they do not found the Wisdom of this his Resolution on any thing like the Incompetency of his

Power, for having determined by himself concerning the Lapsed, within his own District: No, the Reason they give for it, supposes his Power to have been fully Adequate and Competent for that Effect; and, that if he had given the final Stroke, no body could have Quarrel'd it: For they insist only on the Rules of Prudence, which, if I mistake not, are quite, different from the Rules of Power. They tell him, it might prove Invidious and Burdensom for one Bishop to Determine by himself, in a Case in which all Bishops were concerned; and that it was Providently done of him to d••••ire the Confent of his Colleagues, that his Decrees might be Approved and Confirmed; That they might not be made void through the want of the Brotherly Ratifi∣cation. These are the Reasons, I say, for which they justifie his Caution; and these Reasons suppose he had Power to have done otherwise thô not so wisely, nor so warily. And then they tell him over again, That they had met frequently, and can∣vassed the Matter seriously; They had tossed it, not only amongst themselves, but with sev••ral Bishops, far and near, as they had oc∣casion to be in the City; and that still the Conclusion was, That they should attempt no Innovations till a Bishop should be settled: All they had Resolved was, That th••se of the Lapsed, whose Health might allow, should continue in the State of the Penitents, till God should grant them a Bishopy 1.236

Neither was this a meer Complement to our Holy Martyr: Indeed, in all this, they gave him a true Account of their Real Sentiments and Principles, as we learn from another Epistle of theirs, wherein they had neither Occasion nor Temptation to Complement Bishops. The Epistle is that which is the Eigh••h, amongst St. Cyprian's. An Epistle written by them to the Presbyters and Deacons of Carthage; to Persons 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 Presby∣ters, 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 Car∣thage 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 Bishopsz 1.237. And ••ur∣ther, 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 plau∣sible Method for obtaining Indulgences from him who could give thema 1.238 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 Celerin••s a Roman, to Lucianus a Carthagi∣nian, 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 comman∣ded them to continue as they were, i. e. in the State of Penitents, till a Bishop should be Inthronedb 1.239 And now, let any Man judge, whether, according to the Principles and Sentiments of the Presbyters of Rome, St. Cyprian or his presuming Pres∣byters had taken too much upon them at Carthage. But neither is this all yet; for,

••. These Carthaginian Presbyters were also Condemned by the Roman Martyrs and Confessors, who, th•• 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 Con∣fessors wrote also to St. Cyprian, and to the same purpose the Roman Clergy had done: Their Epistle is the 3Ist in num∣ber: In which, they not only beg with a peculiar Earnest∣ness,

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 Pr••late, that is, indeed, a Limb of Antichrist, as this Author would ••ain give him out to have been: But also they heartily Congratulate his discharging, so Laudibly, his Episcopal Office; and that even in his Retire∣ment, 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 R••buked, not only the Lapsed, who, little regarding the Greatness of their Guilt, had, in his Absence, extor∣ted the Churches Peace from his Presbyters; but even these Presby∣ters 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 Bishopc 1.240. Further yet.

6. These same Carthaginian Presbyters resuming their for∣mer Boldness, and Topping it over again with their Bishop, were Excommunicated by him, and his Sentence was Appro∣ved and Ratified by all Catholick Bish••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 no∣thing 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 Al∣lowance;

for 'tis he to whom the Lord's People are committed, and 'tis he that must Account for their Soulsd 1.241, 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 Bishope 1.242. He that h••noureth the Bishop, is honoured of God; but he that doth any thing in opposition to the Bishop, serveth the Devilf 1.243. If any Man pretend to be wiser than the Bishop, (i. e. will have Things done against the Bishop's Will,) he is Corruptedg 1.244. Let us be careful not to resist the Bishop, as we would be subject to Godh 1.245. The Spirit hath spoken, Do ye nothing without the Bishophh 1.246. 'Tis necessary that you continue to do nothing without the Bishopi 1.247.

And now, let any of Common Sense determine, Whe∣ther there was Ground, or shadow of Ground, for insinua∣ting 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 Con∣scientious Presbyters, who then lived, to say so: If thus it was, I say, and 'tis 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 Nega∣tive over his Presbyters, which was the Thing to be de∣monstrated. 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. Cy∣prian'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 Considera∣tion, (th•• no more could be produced for it,) That, still in the Stile and Language of those Times, the Bishop was called the Praepositus, the Ruler, the Governour, the Superiour, of all the Christians within his District, Clergy as well as Laity: And they, without Distinction or Exception, were called His People, his Flock, his Subjects, &c. This may be seen almost in every one of his Epistles. Thus, Ep. 3. he says, That Dea∣cons ought to remember that our Lord chose his Apostles, that is, Bishops and Governours: But the Apostles chose Deacons to be the Bishop's and the Churches Ministers: And therefore a Deacon ought with all Humility to give Satisfaction to the Bishop, his Superiourk 1.248 And Ep. 9. He praises the Roman Clergy for having the Me∣mory of Fabianus, who had been their Superiour, in so great Ho∣nourl 1.249. And Ep. 13. writing to Rogatianus his Presbyter, and the rest of the Confessors, and praising God for their Faith and Patience, he says, That, as all Christians were bound to Re∣joyce when Christ's Flock was illuminated by the Examples of Con∣fessors; so he hims••lf, in a special manner, as being the Bishop, seeing the Churches Glory was the Ruler's Glorym 1.250. And in that famous

Passage which I have cited already from Ep. 16. he complains of it as an unexampled Petulancy, that Presbyters should so contemn the Bishop, their S••periourn 1.251. And in another place, We Bishops, who have the Chief Power in the Churcho 1.252. And Ep. 62. I, who, by the Divine Mercy, Govern the Church, have sent to you [Januarius, Maximus, Proculus,] &c. 100000 Se∣sterc••s, as the Charitable Contribution of my Clergy and People.p 1.253 And Ep. 66. Hence spring Heresies and Schisms, &c. That the Bishop who is one, and is set over the Church, is Contem∣ned, &c.q 1.254 Such was the Dialect of those Times, I say, and thus Bishops were called Rulers, Governours, Superiours, &c. and that in regard of all within their Districts, making no Discrimination betwixt Clergy-men and Laicks; and not only so, but more particularly,

2. It was as comon in that Dialect, to call the Clergy The BISHOP'S CLERGY. Thus for Example, Ep. 14. It was my Wish, that I might have saluted all my Cl••••gy safe and sound, &c.r 1.255 My Presbyters and Deacons ought to have taught you, &c.s 1.256 Because I cannot send Letters but by Clergy-men, and I know that many of mine are absent.t 1.257 Numidicus was preserved alive by God, that he might joyn him my Clergy—u 1.258 Urba∣nus and Sidonius came to my Presbyters—v 1.259 If any of my Pres∣byters or Deacons shall turn precipitant—vv 1.260 I have sent you Co∣pies of the Letters which I wrote to my Clergy and People concer∣ning Felicissimus and his Presbytery—x 1.261 And, as I observed before, when Maxim••s a Presbyter, and Urbanus, &c. returned

from the Novatian Schism to Cornelius's Communion, We are Reconciled (say they to Cyprian) to Cornelius OUR BISHOP, and to all the Clergy.y 1.262

Such was the Language of those Times. Now, I say, by what Propriety of Speech could a Bishop have been called Praepositus, Superiour to his Clergy? Could they have been called HIS Clergy? Could he have been said to have been Their Bishop? Their Ruler? Their Governour? By what Rule of either Grammar or Rhetorick, Logick or Politick, could he have been said to have been set over them, or they to have been his Subjects or Inferiours, if he had no Power nor Iuris∣diction over them? If they were not Subjected to his Autho∣rity, nor Obnoxious to his Discipline? But let all this pass for meer Prolusion if you will. I am not pinch'd for want of Arguments. For,

3. The three great Principles which I proved so fully be∣fore, viz. That a Bishop, in St. Cyprian's time, was the Prin∣ciple of Unity to the Church which he Govern'd; that he had a Supreme Power in it; and that by the Principles which then prevailed, he was the same in the Christian Church, which the High Priest was in the Iewish; and the last Thing I proved also, viz. That he had a Negative over his Presbyters; Each of these is demonstration for the present Conclusion, and you need not Artificial; Natural Logick is enough to let you see the Consequences. Indeed,

4. We find Cyprian all along both Reasoning and Practising to this purpose. Thus, he told Bishop Rogatianus, Ep. 3. That the Case was plain between him and his Deacon: H•• might punish him, forthwith, by his Episcopal Power, and his C••∣thedral Authority:z 1.263 He might make him sensible of his Episcop•• Honour:a 1.264 He might Exert the Power of his Honour against him either by Deposing, or by Excommunicating him:b 1.265 Nay, He migh••

Excommunicate all such as should Rebel against him:c 1.266 For all these Censures, his Sovereign Authority was competent.d 1.267

Thus he praises Pomponius, another Bishop, for Excommu∣nicating another Scandalous Deacon, Ep. 4. p. 9. And did not he himself Suspend Philumenus and Fortunatus, two Sub∣deacons, and Favorinus an Acolyth, from their Livings? As we learn from his 34th Epistle.

But you may say, These Instances extend no further than to Deacons, or more inferiour Clergy-men; but, What is this to Presbyters? Why? Sir, indeed, the Instances are pat and home; and you must acknowledge so much, if you consider, that, by the Principles of those Times, there was no Dispa∣rity between Prebyters and Inferiour Orders in this respect: But the Bishop's Power extended equally to all; just as a King can censure his Chancellor, as well as a Sub-Collector of his Customs; a Justice-General, as well as a Justice of Peace: Nothing clearer from the above-mentioned Princi∣ples. But that I may leave you no imaginable Scruple, I shall even account to you about Prebyters also.

5. Then, I have told you already, how some of the Car∣thaginian Presbyters conspired against St. Cyprian, and used their utmost Arts to hinder his Pre••erment to the Bishoprick. Now, if we may believe either himself, or Pontius in his Life, whatever it was they did on that Occasion, he might have punish'd them for it; punish'd them not only with Deposi∣tion, but with Excommunication, had he pleased. Take first his own Account in Ep. 43. there he tells his People, That through the Malignity and Perfidiousness of some of his Pres∣byters, he durst not adventure to return to Carthage so soon as he would: And he describes those Presbyters thus; That being mindful of their Conspiracy, and retaining their old Grudges against his Promotion, they reinforced their ancient Machinations, and renewed their Attempts for Undermining him, by siding with Feliciss••mus in his Schism: And then he proceeds thus; I neither willed nor wished their Punishment

for their Opposition to my Promotion; yea, I Pardon'd them, and kept my Peace: And yet, now, they have suffered Con∣dign Punishment: Thô I did not Excommunicate them then, their own Guilty Consciences have done it now: They have Excommunicated themselves, &c.e 1.268 Take it next from Pon∣tius his Deacon, Thô I am unwilling, says he, yet I must speak it out: Some resisted his Promotion, but how Gently, how Pa∣tiently, how Generously, how Mercifully, did he forgive them? Did he not thereafter admit them to his most inti∣mate Friendship and Familiarity, to the Astonishment of many? Indeed, he therein shewed a Miracle of Clemencyf 1.269. 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 Ex∣communication, 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 En∣gaged in the Controversie concerning the Lapsed, he threa∣ten'd them, that if they should continue to Absolve and Re∣concile 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 Demon∣stration, 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 ••••ould prove ••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 ••ried and Censured when he should return.g 1.270 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 Fe••icissim••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.h 1.271 And he gave an Account of his Procee∣dings to all Catholick Bishops, particularly to Cornelius Bishop of Rome;i 1.272 and his Sentence was not only ratified by Corne∣lius and Felicissimus, and all his Party refused his Communion, but they met with the same Treatment; St. Cyprian's Sen∣tence was Approved, and Confirmed by all Catholick Churches all the World overk 1.273.

I might easily have proved this more fully, but, I think, I have said enough. And now, Sir, lay these three Things to∣gether, 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 Dis••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 par∣ticular 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 en∣deavour 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 fre∣quently, (no fewer than 6 or 7 times in one Epistle, and 4 or 5 times in anotherl 1.274) that I need not adduce Testimo∣nies. 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 himm 1.275. 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 Col∣lege 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 a••so, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quite different from the True College of Catholick and Ortho∣dox Bishopsn 1.276. Now,

2. As the One Bishop was the Principle of Unity to a parti∣cular Church, so this College of Bishops was the Principle of Unity to the Catholick Church: And Iesus Christ was the Prin∣ciple 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 Con∣stitution 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 for∣cible 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, una∣voidably, 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 Rea∣sonings 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 Schismati••al Methods which destroyed, or tended to destroy, the Unity of the One Church. These being the Great and Fundamental Inte∣rests of the One Church; and they being her Supreme Gover∣nours, they could not but be chiefly bound by the most Fun∣damental Laws of their Office to be Conscientious Conservators of these Great and Fundamental Interests. And indeed, so

they believed themselves to be, as will evidently appear from the following Considerations. And,

I. They look'd upon themselves as bound indispensibly to maintain the Peace, the Unity, the Concord, the Unani∣mity, the Honour, (they are all St. Cyprian's Words) of the College it self. Every Error, every Defect, every Thing Dis∣joy••ted, or out of Tune in it, tended naturally to endanger the great Interests, for the Conservation and Procuration of which it was instituted. For this End,

2. Because every Man, by being Promoted to the Episco∣pal Dignity, was, Eo ipso, a Principle of Unity to a particular Church, and so a Member of the Episcopal College; all possible Care was taken, that a fit Person should be promoted, and that the Promotion should be Unquestionable. Therefore, he was not to be Promoted, as I have proved, but where there was an Unquestionable▪ Vacancy. Therefore, he was not to be Promoted, if there was any thing Uncanonical or Chal∣lengeable in his Baptism, or his Confirmation, or his Pr••motion to any former Order, as I have ••hewn also in the Case of Novationus. Therefore he was Solemnly Elected in the Pre∣sence of the People, That either his Crimes might be detected, or his Merits published; because the People was best acquainted with every Man's Life and Conversation.o 1.277 Therefore he was to be Solemnly Ordained in the Presence of the People also.p 1.278 And that by two or three Bishops at fewest; (thô an Ordination perform'd by One Bishop was truly Valid:) Commonly there were more; all the Bishops of the Province.

3. Being thus Canonically Promoted, his first▪ Work▪ was to send his Communicatory Letters to all other Bishops, to give them thereby an Account of his Canonical Promotion, his Or∣thodoxy in the Faith, his Fraternal Disposition, &c. Thus, Cor∣nelius was no sooner Ordained Bishop of Rome, than he in∣stantly dispatched his Communicatory Letters to St. Cyprianq 1.279 And no doubt, as the Custom was, to all other Bishops; at least, to all Metropolitans, by them to be Communicated to

the Bishops within their Provinces: I say, to Metropolitans, for nothing can be clearer than that there were Metropolitans in St. Cyprian's time. He was undoubtedly One himselfr 1.280 and Agrippi••••s, his Predecessor Bishop of Carthage, was One long before him. Spanhemius himself, our Author's Diligem Searcher into Antiquity, acknowledges its 1.281. But to return from this Digression. Novatianus also, thô Illegally and Schismatically Ordained, found it necessary to send his Communicatory Letters to St. Cyptian; as if he had been Ordain'd Canonically, and in the Unity of the Churcht 1.282. So also Fortunatus, when made a Schismatical Bishop at Carthage, sent his Communicatory Let∣ters to Cornelius Bishop of Romeu 1.283. Indeed, this was never omitted.

4. If there was no Competition, no Controversie in the Ca••e; the Matter was at an end. The Promoted Bishop's Communicatory Letters were sufficient, and he was forthwith faithfully joyned with all his Collegues, as St. Cyprian words itv 1.284. But if there was any Competitor, any Debate, then the rest of the College, before they received him as a Collegue, made further Enquiries. Sometimes they sent some from the Neigh∣bourhood to examine the Matter: Sometimes the Ordainers were obliged to Account for the Person Ordained, and the whole Procedure of the Ordination: Sometimes both Methods were practised. We have a famous Instance of both Me∣thods in one Case; the Case of Cornelius and Novationus. Cornelius, as I have said, upon his Promotion wrote to St. Cy∣prian: So did Novatianus. Here was a Competition. Cyprian therefore, with his African Collegues, sent Caldonius and Fortu∣natus, two Bishops, to Rome, that upon the Place it self, where they might have the surest Information, they might enqu••re into the Merits of the Cause, and try the Competi∣tionw 1.285. And on the other hand, the Sixteen Bishops, who Ordain'd Cornelius, wrote to St. Cyprian, and the rest of the Bishops of Africa, and satisfied them upon the whole Qve∣stion,

demonstrating Cornelius's Title, and Condemning No∣vatianusx 1.286 Such Care was taken, that none should be ad∣mitted Unworthily or Uncanonically into the Episcopal Col∣lege. But then,

5. There was equal Care taken to purge him out of the College again, if he turned either Heretical or Schismatical: If he kept not close to the Laws of One Faith, and One Commu∣nion. If he swerv'd from these, he was forthwith refused the Communion of the whole College. Therefore, (says St. Cyprian to Stephen Bishop of Rome, in the Case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles, who had joyned with Novatianus,) The Corporation of Priests, (the Episcopal College) is Copious, being cemented by the Glue of Mutual Concord, and the Bond of Unity, that if any of the College shall turn Heretick, or attempt to divide or waste the Flock of Christ, the rest may interpose, and, as profi∣table and merciful Shepherds, collect our Lord's Sheep, and restore them to the Flocky 1.287. And this they were bound to do by the Fundamental Laws of One Church, and one Communion; for, as our Martyr subjoyns, Thô they were many Pastors, yet they all fed but one Flock.z 1.288. And therefore all the Bishops in the World were bound to give the desolate Christians of Churches, whereof the Bishops had turned Heretical or Schismatical, the Comfort of their Aid and Assistancea 1.289 'Tis true, no Bishop was Superiour to another Bishop in point of Power or Iurisdiction, but all stood Collateral, as I have proved, and so no Bishop as Superiour to another, in a streight Lin••, could pass Sentence on him, as they might have done to Presbyters. Yet all being United into One College, which College was the Principle of Unity to the Church Catholick, it was necessary, as well as na∣tural, that that College should be impower'd to take care of its own Preservation, and by consequence, they could do the Equivalent of a formal and authoritative Deposition; they could refuse the Heretical or Schismatical Bishop their Commu∣nion, and thereby exclude him from the Episcopal College: And they could oblige all the Christians within his District to aban∣don

his Communion, and choose another Bishop, as they valued the invaluable Priviledges of the One Church, and the One Com∣munion. But then,

6. So long as a Bishop, worthily, and legally Promoted, kept the Faith and the Unity of the Church, he was Treated, he was Encouraged, he was Consulted, he was Corresponded with; in a word, Every way used as became the Head of a particu∣lar Church, and a Fellow-Member of the College. All the rest of the Members were bound, by the Fundamental Laws of the College, to Ratifie all his Canonical, nay, Equitable Acts of Priesthood, Government, and Discipline. Whosoever was Bapti∣zed by himself, or by his Clergy, with his Allowance was to be owned as a Baptized Christian, a True Denison of the Church, and to have the Priviledges of such all the World 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 Ex∣communicates. 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.b 1.290 And Cyprian rejected No∣vatianus and all his Party, because not in Communion with Cornelius.c 1.291 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 reser∣ved 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 con∣sequence, 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 Persecu∣tion, 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.d 1.292. So Eminent and Conside∣rable 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, Recommenda∣tory, Communicatory, Congratulatory, Apologetick, Testi∣monial; 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 Ho∣nour, 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 Go∣v••rn'd.

All the great Concerns of both the Catholick Church, and the Episcopal College, were, in th••se Times, transacted by Letters. There was no possibility of General Councils then: All that could be done, was either to meet in Provincial Sy∣nods, upon great Emergencies; or, if that could not be neither, to transact Matters, and bring them to a Ge∣neral 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 Synodi∣cal Letters, Matters came sometimes to such a General Agree∣ment and Determination, as, in the Result, was fully Equi∣valent 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, Anti••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 Sick∣ness.e 1.293 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.f 1.294 And that other Ca∣non mentioned by him also, That no Clergy-man should be Tutor to Minors.g 1.295 Thus also, long before St. Cyprian, the great Controversie concerning the Observation of Easter, was ma∣naged in many Synods, as Eusebius tells us.h 1.296 And a few Years after his Martyrdom, the Case of Paulus Samosatenus.i 1.297 These Instances are only for a Sample.

When Provincial Synods could not be kept, or emergent Matters of Consequence could not be conveniently deter∣min'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.k 1.298 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 Eviden∣ces 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 An∣swer, 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 Reso∣lution, might be kept by all the College.i 1.299 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 overm 1.300 Thus, I say, sometimes the greatest Af∣fairs of the Church were managed: And, 'tis plain, this Me∣thod▪ 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, rela∣ting 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 Let∣ters, directed to Polycarpus their Bishop; and, seeing their Bishop was absent, finding it necessary that they should re∣turn an Answer, in his Name, as having his presumed Al∣lowance for it, they wrote to Cornelius in the common Form, acknowledging him as Bishop of Rome, and subjoyning Poly∣carpus 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 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 Nova∣tianus, and being unwilling to do any thing rashly, had de∣termined 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 Adrum••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 Reso∣lution: How it was in consequence of that Resolution, that the Clergy of Adrumetum had changed their Direction: And how, by the whole Method, no••••••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 Recon∣cile 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 itn 1.301 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 Metropoli∣tans: 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 al∣lowed; 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 Fortuna∣tus 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 Inte∣grity, 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 Lett••s.o 1.302 The other Testimony is in Ep. 68. where Cyprian having given his Senti••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 Ste∣phen 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.p 1.303

I have only given you a Taste of the Methods and Expe∣dients which were put in Practice in those Times, for pre∣serving 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 Ou•• College; of all parti∣cular Principles of Unity of particular Churches, into one Aggre∣gated Principle of Unity, proportioned to the Extent of all those Churches in their Aggregation: And by the mutual Sup∣port 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 No∣tion of a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time. For,

How could either Single Presbyter, or Presbyterian Modera∣tor, 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 in∣sisted 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 Analo∣gies, the Scheme or Plot of Presbyterian Parity, to have commit∣ted 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 Pre∣serving the Faith, and the Unity, and managing all the Af∣fairs 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 Ex∣communications, his Injunctions of Penances, his Absolutions, his Ordinations, his Degradations, his Depositio••••; in a word, all his Acts of Government and Discipline, within his own Di∣strict, 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 Gover∣nours 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 Communica∣tory, Informatory, Con••olatory; in short, all Letters con∣cerning the Publick Affairs of the Catholick Church, or the Sacred College that Ruled the Catholick Church, should have been R••ceived? As that to him, and to him alone, all such Let∣ters have been directed? As that by the Circulation and Recipro∣cation of Letters betwixt him and his Collegues, and their Ge∣neral Agreement upon any Thing, by that Circulation and R••ciprocation, Laws should have been given to the whole Ca∣tholick 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 ei∣ther?

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 Consi∣deration more; and that is,

What Character he bore, what Figure he made, in the Eye of those who were without; of the Heathen World, espe∣cially 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 Go∣vernours, 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 Dea∣cons, and told them how earnest he was to return to the City, but Prudence would not let him. When he conside∣red 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.q 1.304 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.r 1.305 In his 20th Epistle directed for the Ro∣man Presbyters and Deacons, he Apologizes for his Retire∣ment after this manner. In compliance with our Lord's Com∣mands, (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.s 1.306 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 per∣fidious 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 Sedi∣tion, and to have imbittered the Persecution.t 1.307

Here, I think, is clear Demonstration of the Episcopal Emi∣nence 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.u 1.308 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 Conspi∣cuous 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. Con∣sider 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 n••i∣ther so INVIDIOUS, nor by far so DANGEROUS, might perform the part of Vicars to him.v 1.309 Here, I think, we have a full Evidence of a fair Discrimination was made be∣twixt 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, & cw 1.310 And again, Ep. 66. he tells Flo∣rentius 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 Unaccoun∣table in Florentius not to own him as a Bishop.x 1.311 And Pontiu•• his Deacon tells us, That, when he at last commenced Mar∣tyr in t••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.y 1.312 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 Dec••us (from a Sense, no doubt, that, as Heads of their re∣spective Churches, they were, under God, the great Suppor∣ters and Promoters of our Most Holy Faith,) had such a Spite, such a Pique, at the Christian Bishops, that for Exam∣ple, He could have heard with greater Patience and Composure, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 another ••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.z 1.313 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 Martyr∣dom, Ordered, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the chief Governours of the Christian Churches, should only be put to Death, as being the Au∣thors of the Propagation of the Gospel?a 1.314 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 Persecu∣tors; and so much Reason had St. Cyprian to say, That it mattered not, whence (whether from Heathens without, or Schismaticks within, if they may be called any way within,) Terrors or Perils threatned a Bishop, seeing, as such, he was still obnoxious to Terrors or Perils.b 1.315 Meaning, that, in those Times, Bishops, as Bishops, were still exposed to the first burnt of all Per∣secutions. As, on the other hand, when the Human Galie∣n••s, who succeeded to Valerianus, stop'd the Persecution which his Predecessor had begun, he began his Imperial R••∣script, thus, The Emperour Publius Lic••nius Galie••••s, &c. To Dionysius, Pinnas, Demetrius, and the rest of the BISHOPS, &c. and so went on, telling them, How he had ordered his Edict of Grace and Clemency to be Published all the World over; allowing them to rely upon it, as full Security against all Molestation for the future.c 1.316 Thus, I say, that Heathen Em∣perour stopping the Current of a fierce Persecution, and designing Favour and Security to Christians, directed his Letters to the Christian Bishops, as the Persons who were Heads of the Christian Churches, and in all Persecutions had wont to be exposed to the greatest Hazards.

Thus, Sir, I have examined our Author's Definition of a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time; and, if I mistake not, have de∣monstrated by many solid Arguments, that he was neither Single Presbyter, nor Presbyterian Moderator, in the Presbyterian Sense of the Terms; but a True Prelate in the strictest pro∣priety of Speech. Consider my Arguments thoroughly, and weigh them only in the Ballance of Iustice, without Prejudice,

and without Partiality, and try whether Each of them singly, and much more, all together do not Conclude irrefragably against him. And if they shall be found to be Concludent, I leave it next to you to Determine, whether our Author is not both fairly and formally bound by his Word to confess himself a Schismatick.

When I first put Pen to Paper, I had in my Project to have proceeded further, and made it appear as evidently, as what I have now dispatched, That the Episcopal Preheminence which was so notoriously and unquestionably Prelatical in St. Cyprian's time, was no Novel Usurpation, no Late Invention, not at all the Production of the Cyprianic Age, nor any Age later than the Apostles: That St. Cyprian, and all his Contemporaries, firmly believed it to be of Divine Institution; That they had not En∣tertained it, having so little Temporal Encouragement, nay, so great and many Temporal Discouragements to Entertain it, if they had not so believed: That they had great Reason for this their Belief; as fairly founded on our Saviour's own Ordi∣nance; and fully handed down to them in the constant Practice of the Universal Church from the First Plantation of Christian Churches: That it pass'd amongst them as a common Principle, That Bishops, as I have represented them, Bishops, as they were then, that is, clearly contradistinct from Presbyters and Superiour to them, Bishops as the Heads of, and Principles of Unity to, their respective Churches, were the Rightful, True, and Genuine Successors of the Apostles, in the Supreme visible Ecclesiastical Power of Governing the Churches, whereof they were Bishops.

These Things, I say, I had once in my Prospect; but this Letter has swell'd to such a Bulk already, as, perhaps, may fright you from Reading it: And you may Command me to Prosecute what is lest undone, when you will: And what I have written, as I said, seems to me sufficient, in Point of Ar∣gument, for bringing your Author to a Sense of his State, as well as a Candid Confession of it, when 'tis thus plainly repre∣sented to him: And therefore I Conclude with my Best Chri∣stian Wishes to you and him, and all Men.

March 28. 1695.

FINISH.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Ad Quest. 1. Sect. 5.
• b 1.2

  Episcoporum manifesta ubi∣que 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 se•• jure praesi∣dendi, Convo∣candi, Ordinan∣di &c. Epit. Isag. ad Hist, Eccles. Nov. Test. Saec. 3. Sect. 6. pag. mi••i, 117.
• c 1.3

  Sect. 32. p. 28.
• d 1.4

  Sed nec hujus aevi Ordines Minores, quales Ostiariorum, Copiatarum, Acolythorum, Exorcistarum. p. 119.
• e 1.5

  Suffrag. 1, 8, 31, 37.
• f 1.6

  Ep. 23. p. 49. Ep. 69. p. 187. Ep. 75. p. 223.
• g 1.7

  Hist. Ecd. lib. 6. cap. 43.
• h 1.8

  Presbyteri & Diaconi in Adrum••tina Consistentes, Polycarpo Co-••piscopo no∣stro absente, ig∣norabant quid nobis in Com∣mune placuis∣sit, &c. Ep. 49. p. 91.
• i 1.9

  Ep. 43.
• k 1.10

  Ep. 59.
• l 1.11

  Ep. 59. p. 139.
• m 1.12

  H. E. lib. 7. cap. 11.
• n 1.13

  Cum sit, a Christo, una Ecclesia, per totum Mundum, in multa Mem∣bra divisa, item Episcopa∣tus unus Episco∣porum multo∣rum Concordi Numerositate Diff••sus; ille, post Dei traditionem, post connexam & ubique conjunctam Catholicae Eccl••siae Unitatu••m, huma∣nam conetur Ecclesiam facere, & per plurimas Civitates, noves Apo••tolos suos mittat, ut quae∣dam r••c••ntia institutionis suae fundam••nta constituat; cumque jampridem per OMNES PROVINCIAS & per URBES SINGULAS, Ordinati s••nt Episcopi, in aetate; antiqui, in ••ide integri, in pr••ssura probati, in persecutione proscripti, ille super eos 〈◊〉〈◊〉: alios pseudo-episcopos aud••at. Ep. 55. p. 112.
• o 1.14

  Quanquam sciam, Frater Charissime, Epi∣scopos plurimos Ecclestis Do∣minicis in TOTO MUNDO divina digna∣tione praep••si∣tos, &c. Ep. 63. ab init.-
• p 1.15

  Divino Sacer∣dotio honorati, & in Claricis Ministeriis con∣stituti non nist Altari & Sa∣••rificii•• de fer∣vir••, & preci∣bus atque Ora∣tionibus vaca∣re debeant. Ep. 1. P. 1.
• q 1.16

  Ut eum Clero nostro Dominus adjungeret, & desolatam per lapsum quorun∣dam, Presbyte∣rii nostri copiâ Gloriosis Sacer∣dotibus adorna∣r••t. Ep. 40. p. 79.
• r 1.17

  Ep. 5. p. 11.
• s 1.18

  Ep. 59. p. 134. & De Lapsis, p. 128.
• t 1.19

  Ep. 15, 16, 17. sus••,
• u 1.20

  Ep. 61. p. 144
• v 1.21

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 plane & ad∣〈◊〉〈◊〉, Fra∣ter cariss••me, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & Autho••itate communi, ••t etiam s•• qui Presbyteri—Contr•• Altare unum atque divi••um, Sa∣crifici••, foris, falsa & Sacril••g•• offerre conati sin••, cos quoque ••ac conditione suscipi, cum revertunt••••, at COMMUNICENT LAICI—Nec debere cos r••vertentes, e••, apud nos, Ordinationis & Honoris arma retinere, quibus contra nos Rebellaverunt: Oport••t enim SACERDOTES—qui Altari & Sacrificiis deserviunt, int••gros atque immaculat••s ess••, &c. Ep. 72. p. 197.
• vv 1.22

  Christo sunt Ecclesia, plebs Sac••rdoti ad∣unata, & pa∣stori suo Grex adhaerens. Un∣de scire d••bes Episcopum in Ecclesi••m esse, & Ecclesia in Episcopo, & si qui cum Episcopo non sint, in Ecclesia non esse. Ep. 66. p. 168.
• x 1.23

  Quis namqu•• hic est superbiae tumor? Quae arrogantia animi? Quae mentis inflatio? Ad cognitio∣nem suam, prae∣p••sitos & Sa∣cerdotes voca∣re? Ac nis•• apud te purga∣ti fucrimus & sententia tua absoluti, ecce jam, sex annis, nec fraternitas habuit Episco∣pum, nec pl••bs praepositum, nec Grex pa∣storem, nec Ec∣clesia Guberna∣tor••m, nec Christus Anti∣stitem, nec Deus Sacerdo∣tem? Ibid. p. 167.
• y 1.24

  Praepositus, passim.
• z 1.25

  Christi adversarius, & Ecclesiae ejus immicus. ad hoc Ecclesiae praep••situm sua infestatione prosequitur, ut Gubernat••r•• sublato, atrocius atque violentius circa Ecclesiae Naufragia Grassetur. Ep. 59. p. 130. Vide etiam Ep. 30. p. 56.
• a 1.26

  Ep. 41. p. 79.
• b 1.27

  Gubernator, passim,
• c 1.28

  Rector. Ep. 59. p. 133.
• d 1.29

  Dux. Ep. 60. p. 141.
• e 1.30

  Caput. Ep. 45. p. 86.
• f 1.31

  Iudex. Ep. 59. p. 129.
• g 1.32

  Et cum incumbat n••bis qui videmur praepositi esse, & VICE PASTORIS custodire Gregem, &c.
• h 1.33

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ignat. ad Smyrn. Edit. Lon••. 1680. p. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Episcopo, nempe, Presbyteris & Diaconis,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ad Trall. p. 48. & passon.
• i 1.34

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Apud Eusib. H. E. Lib. 6. cap. 43.
• k 1.35

  Sacerdotii sublime fasti∣gium. Ep. 55. p. 103.
• l 1.36

  Et cum post primum secun∣dus esse non possit, quisquis post unum, qui solus esse de∣beat, factus est, non 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ille secundus, sed nullus est. Ep. 55. p. 104.
• m 1.37

  Quisquis ille est & qualis∣cunque est, Christianus non est. Ep. 55. p. 112. fuse.
• n 1.38

  Ep. 44. p. 86. Ep. 45. p. 86. Ep. 46. p. 89. Ep. 59. p. 130. Ep. 61. p. 144. Ep. 68. p. 177. Ep. 69. p. 184. Un. Eccl. p. 110.
• o 1.39

  Ecclesia enim una est, quae una & intus esse & foris, non potest. Si e••xim apud Novatianum est, apud Cornelium non suit. Si vera apud Cornelium suit, qui Fabiano Episcopo, Legitima Ordinatione successit, & qu••m, praete•• Sacerdotii honorem, Martyrio quoque Dominus Glorificavit, Novatianus in Ecclesia non est, nec Episcopus computari potest, qui, Evangelica & Apostolica Traditione contempta, nemini succe∣dens, a seip••o Ortus est: Habere namque aut tenere Ecclesiam nullo modo potest qui Ordinatus in Ecclesia non est: Foris enim non esse Ecclesiam, nec scindi adversum se, &c. Et paulo post, Idcirco Dominus insinuans nobis Unitatem de Divina Auctorstate veni••ntem, ponit & Dicit. Ego & Pater unum sumus: Ad quam unitatem redigens Ecclesiam suam, denuo dicit, Et erit Unus Grex, & Unus Pastor: Si autem Grex unus est, quomodo potest Gregi annumerari qui in numero Gregis non ••st? Aut Pastor quomodo haberi potest qui (manente vero pastore, & in Ecclesia D••i Ordinatione succidanea praesidente) nomini succedens, & a seipso incipi••ns, Alie∣nus sit & profaxus, Dominicae pacis at Divine Unitatis inimicus; non habitans in do•••• Dei, i. e. in Ecclesia Dei, in qua non nist Concordes & Unanimes habitant? Ep. 69. p. 181, 182.
• p 1.40

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eus▪ b. H. E. Lib. 6. cap. 43.
• q 1.41

  Nos Corne∣lium Episco∣pum Sancti••••i∣••ae Catholice Ecclesiae Eleclum a Deo Omn••potente, & Christo Domino nostro sci••us. Nos error••m nostsrum 〈◊〉〈◊〉; nos imposturam pass•• sumus; circumventi sumus perfidia & Loquacitate captiosa: Non enim ignoramus Unum D••um 〈◊〉〈◊〉; Unum Christ•••••• ••sse Dominum, quem Confess•• sumus; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Spiritum Sanctum; Unum Epi••••opum in Catholica Eccl••sia esse d••bere. Ep. 49. p. 93.
• r 1.42

  Ep. 67.
• s 1.43

  Ibid.
• t 1.44

  Ep. 68.
• u 1.45

  Ep. 36.
• v 1.46

  Ep. 50, & 52.
• vv 1.47

  Ep. 65.
• x 1.48

  Propter quo••∣diligenter de Traditiove Di∣vina & Apo∣stolica Obser∣vatione s••r••andum & tenendum est, quod apud nos quoque & fere per Provincias Un••versas tenetur, ut ad Ordinationes rite celebrandas, ad ••am Plebem cut praepositus ordinatur, Episcopi ••jusdem Provinciae proximi quique conveniant, & Episcopus deligatur, Plebe praesente, &c: Ep. 67. p. 172. Praecter illud quod in hac eadem Epistola, De Sabino, Legere est, h••jus ritus, tanquam jam tum triti, in Succ••ssore, Narcisso Hierosolymitani., Substituendo exemplum luculentum habes apud Euseb. l. 6. c. 10.
• y 1.49

  Pontius in vita Cypr. Euseb. Chron. Hieron. C••tal.
• z 1.50

  Per omnia Ecclesiastica Offici•• promo∣tus—Ad Sacerdotii sub∣lime fastigium cunctis gradi∣bus ascendit. Ep. 55. p. 103.
• a 1.51

  Ep. 55. p. 112.
• b 1.52

  Ep. 67. p. 172.
• c 1.53

  Ep. 56. p. 115.
• d 1.54

  Euseb. H. E. lib. 6. c. 19, 20.
• e 1.55

  Ibid.
• f 1.56

  Lib. 7. c. 11, 22, 28.
• g 1.57

  Euseb. H. E. l. 5. c. 4, 5.
• h 1.58

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Canon. Apost. 1.
• i 1.59

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 E••seb. l. 6. c. 43.
• k 1.60

  Ep. 59. p. 113.
• l 1.61

  Vide, True Representa∣tion of Presb. Gov. Prop. 15.
• a 1.62

  Unit. Eccl. p. 108.
• b 1.63

  Unit. Eccl. p. 112.
• c 1.64

  Sacrificium Deo majus est Pax nostra, & fraterna con∣cordia, & de unitate Patris & Spiritus Sancti plebs adunata. Cyp. de Orat. Dom. p. 149.
• d 1.65

  Firmil. Ep. inter Cypriani∣cas 75. p. 217.
• e 1.66

  Cyp. Un. Eccl. p. 105.
• f 1.67

  Conc Carth. Suff. 60.
• g 1.68

  Un. Eccl. p. 117.
• h 1.69

  Firmil. Ep. inter•• Cypr. 75. p. 227.
• i 1.70

  Euseb. H. E. l. 6. c. 45.
• k 1.71

  Cyp. Ep. 69. p. 185.
• l 1.72

  Ibid. Ep. 59. p. 138.
• m 1.73

  Un. Eccl. p. 108, 109.
• n 1.74

  Conc. Carth. Suff. 10.
• o 1.75

  Cyp. Ep. 51. p. 95.
• p 1.76

  Ep. 55. p. 103.
• q 1.77

  Ibid. p. 105.
• r 1.78

  Ep. 57. p. 117.
• s 1.79

  Conc. Carth Suff. 1, 11, 64, 87. Ep. 69. p. 180.
• t 1.80

  Conc. Carth. Suff. 5.
• u 1.81

  Ib. Suff. 7, & 21.
• v 1.82

  Suff. 1, 31.
• vv 1.83

  Suff. 1.
• x 1.84

  Un. Eccl. p. 116.
• y 1.85

  Cyp. de Orat. Dom. p. 150.
• z 1.86

  Un. Eccl. p. 116.
• a 1.87

  Ibid. p. 109.
• b 1.88

  Cyp. Ep. 69. p. 182.
• c 1.89

  Un. Eccl. p. 109.
• d 1.90

  Cyp. Ep. 4. p. 9.
• e 1.91

  Conc. Carth. Suff. 1.
• f 1.92

  Suff. 37.
• g 1.93

  Ep 59. p. 140.
• h 1.94

  Un. Eccl. p. 114. Con. Carth. Suff. 24. Ep. 55. p. 112.
• i 1.95

  Un. Eccl. p. 114.
• k 1.96

  Ibid.
• l 1.97

  Ep. 69. p. 18••.
• m 1.98

  Con. Carth. Suff. 60.
• n 1.99

  Ep. 73. p. 207.
• o 1.100

  Ep. 72. p. 197.
• p 1.101

  Un. Eccl. p. 111. Con. Carth. Suff. 29. Ep. 43. p. 83.
• q 1.102

  Un. Eccl. p. 112.
• r 1.103

  Ep. 69. p. 180.
• s 1.104

  Un. Eccl. p. 113.
• t 1.105

  P. 114, 117. in Ep. passim.
• u 1.106

  Un. Eccl. p. 115. Ep. 59. p. 140.
• v 1.107

  Con. Carth. Suff. 38.
• vv 1.108

  Ibid. Suff. 49, 58, 61.
• x 1.109

  Ep. 73. p. 203.
• y 1.110

  Ep. 69. p. 184.
• z 1.111

  Ep. 43. p. 82, 85.
• a 1.112

  Ep. 60. p. 142.
• b 1.113

  Con. Carth. Suff. 7.
• c 1.114

  Ibid. Suff. 1.
• d 1.115

  Dominus noster, cujus praecepta me∣tuere & obser∣vare deb••mus, Episcopi hono∣rem, & Ecclesiae suae Rationem disponens in Evangelio, Lo∣quitur & dicit Petro; Ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, & super istam Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, & portae inferorum non vincent eam; Et tibi dabo claves regni Caelorum, &c.—Inde per temporum & successionum vices. Episcoporum Ordinatio, & Ecclesi•• ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur: Et omnes actus Ecclesiae p••r eosdem praepositos Gubernetur. Cum hoc itaque Divina lege fund imeutum sit, miror quosdam audaci ••emeritate sic mihi scribere voluisse, ut Ecclesiae ••omine literas facerent: Quando Ecclesia in Ep••scopo & Clero, & in omn••bu•• stantibus sit constituta: Absit enim, ne Domini misericordia & potestas ejus invidiam patia∣tur, ut Ecclesia esse dicatur Lapsorum numerus. Ep. 33. p. 66.
• e 1.116

  Deus unus est, & Christus unus, & una Ecclesia, & Cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata. Aliud Altare consti∣tui, aut Sa∣cerdotium no∣vum fieri, prae∣ter unum Alta∣re, & unum Sacerdotium, non potest. Quisquis alibi collegerit, spar∣git. Adulterum est, impium est, sacrilegum est, quod••unque hu∣mano furore instituitur, ut dispositio Divina violetur—Nemo vos, fratres, errare a Domini viis faciat: Nemo vos Christianos ab Evangelio Christi rapiat: Nemo filios Ecclesiae de Ecclesia tollat: Pereant sibi soli, qui perire voluerunt. Extra Ecclesiam soli remaneant, qui de Ecclesia recesserunt. Soli cum Episcopis non sint, qui contra Episcopos Rebellarunt. Ep. 43. p. 83, 84.
• f 1.117

  Vide supra, pag. 8.
• g 1.118

  An ess sibi cum Christo videtur, qui adversus Sacerdotes Christi facit? Qui s•• •• Cleri ejus & plebis Societate sec••rnit? Arma ille contra Ecclesiam portat. Contra Dei dispositionem pug∣nat. Hostis Altaris; adversus Sacrificium Christi Rebellis; pro Fide, Perfidus; pro Religione, Sacrilegus; inobsequens servus; Filius impius; Frater inimicus; contemptis Episcopis & Dei Sacerdot••bus derelictis. Constituere audet aliud Altare, precem alteram, illicitis vocibus fa∣cere, &c. De Unit. Eccl. p. 116.
• h 1.119

  Deus unus est, & Christus unus, & una Ecclesia ejus, & Fldes una, & Plebs in solidam Corporis unitatem, Concordiae glutino copulata. Ibid. p. 119.
• i 1.120

  Haec sunt enim initia Haereti∣corum, & Or∣tus atque Co∣natus Schisma∣ticorum male cogitantium, ut sibi place∣ant, & Prae∣positum superbo tumore con∣temnant. Sic de Ecclesia re∣ceditur; sic Altare profa∣num, foris, collocatur; sic contra pac••m Christi, & Ordinationem atque Unita∣t••m Dei Rebel∣latur. Ep. 3. p. 6.
• k 1.121

  Neque enim aliunde Haereses obortae sunt, aut nata sunt Schismata quam inde, quod Sacer∣doti Dei non obtemperatur: Nec unus in Ecclesia, ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad t••mpus Iudex, vice Christi cogitatur. Ep. 59. p. 129.
• l 1.122

  Inde enim Schismata & Haereses Obortae sunt & Oriuntur, dum Episcopus qui unus est, & Ecclesiae praeest. superba quorundam Praesumptione contemnitur; & homo Dignitate Dei honora∣tus, indignus ab hominibus judicatur. Ep. 66. p. 167.
• m 1.123

  Apes habent Regem, & ducem Pecudes, & fidem servant Latrones; Mancipi obsequio pleno humilitatis ob••emperant. Quanto simpliciores & meliores vobis sunt brutae pecudes, & muta animalia, & cru••nti licet ac furentes inter Gladios, a••que inter arma praedones? Prae∣positus illic agnoscitur & cru••nt licet ac furentes inter Gladios, a••que inter arma praedones? Prae∣positus illic agnosciture & timetur, quem non S••ntentia Divina constituit, sed in qu••m factio per∣dita, & noc••ns Caterva consentit. Ibid.
• n 1.124

  Hinc Dominicae pacis vinculum rumpitur; hinc Charitatis fraterna violatur; hinc adulte∣ratur veritas; unitas scinditur; ad Haereses & Schismata Prosilitur: Dum obtrectatur Sac••r∣dotibus; dum Episcopis invidetur; cum quis aut quaeritur non s•• potius Ordinatum, aut dedigna∣tur alterum ferre praepositum. De Zelo & Livore, p. 223.
• o 1.125

  Ne•• sibi Plebs blandiatur, quasi immunis esse a Contagio delict•• possit, ••um Sacerdo••e peccatore Com∣municans, & ad injustum & illicitum praepositi sui Episcopat um, consensum suum commoda••s; qu••••do per O••ee Prophetm (Hos. 9. 4.) comminetur & dicat Cens••ra Divina—Docens Scil. & Ostende••s, omnes omnino ad peccatum constringi, qui fuerint profani & injusti S••cerdotis Sacrificio contaminati—Propter quod plebs obsequens praceptis Dominicis, & Deum met••ens a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 praeposit•• se debet, nec se ••d Sacrilegi Sacerdotis sacrificia miscere. Ep. 67. p. 171.
• p 1.126

  Quare et•••• aliq••i de Collegis nostris—Deificam Disciplinam negligend••m putant, & cum Basilide & Martiale ••emere communicant—Tamen, qui malis & peccatoribus—〈◊〉〈◊〉 Communione 〈◊〉〈◊〉, nocenti•••• lactibus 〈◊〉〈◊〉; & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 junguntur in culp••, sic nec in p••na separantur. Ibid. p. 175.
• q 1.127

  Ep. 68.
• r 1.128

  Virtus ill••c Episcopi praec••∣de••tis, public•• comprobata ••st; ad••natio se∣quen••is frater∣nitatis Oste••s•• nitatis Ostensa est; dum apud vos, unus ani∣mus & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vox est, Eccl••∣sia omnis Ro∣mana Confes∣sa est. Ep. 61. p. 141.
• s 1.129

  Eo quod con∣gruat Episco∣pum in ea Ci∣vitate in qua Ecclesiae Domi∣nicae prae••st, illic Dominum confiteri, & Plebem uni∣versam, prae∣positi praes••ntis Confessione cla∣rificari. Qu••d∣cunque enim sub illo conf•• s∣sionis momento, Co••f••ssor Epi∣scopus l••quitur, aspirante D••o, ORE OMNINM loquitur, caeterum mutabilitur Honor Ecclesiae nostrae tam Gloriosae, s•• ego Episcopus alterius Ecclesiae praepositus, acceptâ, apud Uticam, super confession•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉, exinde Martyr ad Dominum proficiscar; quandoquidem Ego & pro ME & pro VOBIS apud VOS confiteri, & exinde ad Dominum proficisci, Orationibus continuis D••pre∣cer, &c. Ep. 81. p. 238, 239.
• t 1.130

  Vide Ep. 17. p. 39. & De Lapsis, p. 122, 123. fuse.
• u 1.131

  O beatum Ecclesiae populum, qui Episcopo suo tali, & Oculis pariter & sensibus, & quod amplius est, publicata voce compassus est, & sicut ipso tractante s••mper audierat, Deo jud ••e Coronatus est▪ Quamvis enim non potuerit evenire, quod optabant vota communia, ut consortio pacis Gloriae simul pl••bs tota pat••retur; quicunque sub Christi spectantis Oculis, & sub auribus Sac••rdotis ex animo pa••i voluit, p••r idoneum voti sui testem, Legationis quodam modo literas ad Deum misit. Pontius in vita Cyp. p. 10.
• v 1.132

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Edit. Lond. 1680. p. 6.
• vv 1.133

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 40.
• x 1.134

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 43.
• y 1.135

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 17.
• z 1.136

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 47.
• a 1.137

  Ep••scopatus unus est, cujus a singul••s in solidum pars tenetur. Cyp. de Un. Eccl. p. 108.
• b 1.138

  Et cum sit a Christo una Ecclesia, per to••u•• Mundum in multa Mem∣bra 〈◊〉〈◊〉; item, Episco∣pa••us unus Epi∣scoporum mul∣torum Concordi numerositate diffusus, &c. Ep. 55. p. 112.
• c 1.139

  Et quamvi•• Apostolis omni∣bus PAREM potestatem tri∣buat & di∣cat, &c. Un. Eccl. p. 107.
• d 1.140

  Hoc ••rant utique caet••ri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus; PARI CON∣SORTIO praediti & ho∣noris & pote∣statis. Ibid.
• e 1.141

  Man••nte con∣cordiae vinculo, & p••rseverante catholicae Ec∣clesiae individuo Sacramento, actum suum disponit & dirigit unusquisque Episcopus, rationem prop••siti sui Domino redditurus. Ep. 55. p. 110.
• f 1.142

  Haec tibi bre∣viter, pro no∣stra Mediocri∣tate, rescripsi∣mus, Frater carissime, ne∣mini praescri∣bentes aut prae∣judicantes quo minus unus∣quisque Episco∣porum, quod putant, faciat, hab••ns arbitrii sui liberam potestatem. Ep. 73. P. 210.
• g 1.143

  Ep. 62. p. 188.
• h 1.144

  Ep. 66.
• i 1.145

  Superest ut de hac ipsa re, singuli, quid sentiamu, proferamus; neminem judicantes, aut a jure Communionis, aliquem, si diversum senserit, ameventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adigit; quando habeat omnis Episco∣pus, pro licentia libertatis & potestatis suae, arbitrium proprium; tamque ab alio judicari non possit, quam nec ipse poterit judicare: Sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Iesus Chri∣sti, qui unus & solus habet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae Gubernatione & de act•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nostro judicandi. Opp. Cyp. Tom. 1. p. 229.
• k 1.146

  Quae autem causa veniendi & Pseudo-Epi∣scopum contra Episcopos fac∣tumnuntiandi? Aut ••••im pla∣cet illis quod fecerunt & in s••to scelere per∣severant; aut si displicet & recedunt, sciunt quo revertan∣t••r. Nam cum st••tutum sit omnibus no∣bis, & aequum sit pariter ac justum, at uni∣uscujusque causa illic au∣diatur, ubi est Crimen ad∣missum, & portio Gregis singulis pasto∣ribus sit ad∣scripta, quam regat U••usquisque & Gubernet, rationem sui actus Domino redditurus, oportet utique eos quibus praesumus, no•• circumcurfare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem sua sub∣dola & fallaci temeritate collidere, sed agere illic causam saum ubi & accusatores habere, & testes sui Criminis possint. Ep. 59. P. 36.
• l 1.147

  Caeterum scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint, nolle deponere; nec propositum suum facile mutate; sed salvo, inter Collegas, pacis ac Concordiae vinculo, quaedam propria, quae apud se se∣mel sint usurpata retinere. Qua in re, nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus; cum habeat, in Ecclesiae administratione, voluntatis liberum, unusquisque praepositus, rationem sui actus Domino redditurus. Ep. 72. p. 198.
• m 1.148

  Vide Ep. 74, & 75.
• n 1.149

  Quanquam bene sibi con∣scius animus; & Evangelicae Disciplinae vi∣gore subnixus; & verus sibi, in Decretis Caelestibus, testis effectus, soleat, solo Deo judice, esse contentus; nec alterius aut Laudes petere, aut Accusationes pertimescere; Tam••n geminata sunt laude Condigni, qui, cum Conscientiam sciant Deo soli deb••re se judici, actus tamen suos desiderant etiam ab ipsis suis fra∣tribus comprobari, &c. Ep. inter Cyprianicas 30. p. 56.
• o 1.150

  —Iudex vice Christi cogitatur. Ep. 59. p. 129.
• p 1.151

  Cathedram sibi constituere, & primatum ass••mere, &c. Ep. 69. p. 184.
• q 1.152

  Gubernandae Ecclesiae Libram tenentes—Ep. 68. p. 177.
• r 1.153

  Sacerdotii sublime fastigium, 55. p. 103.
• s 1.154

  Cum pro Episcopatus vigore, & Cathedrae authoritate, haberes potestatem; &c. Ep. 3. p. 5.—Si it•• res est,—Actum est de Episcopatus vigore. Ep. 59. p. 126.
• t 1.155

  In Solidum. Un. Eccl. p. 108.
• u 1.156

  —Actum est de Ecclesiae gu∣bernam••ae sub∣limi ac Divina potestate. Cyp. ad Cornel. Ep. 59. p. 126.
• v 1.157

  Neque enim quisquam no∣strum episco∣pum se Episco∣porum consti∣tuit. Cyp. in Conc. Carth. p. 129. Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit, & super quem aedificavit Ec∣clesiam suam, cum secum Paulus de cir∣cumcisione post modum Disc••ptaret, vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter, aut arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se Primatum tenere—Ep. 71. p. 194, 195.
• vv 1.158

  Vide supra.
• x 1.159

  Passim.
• y 1.160

  Vide supra.
• z 1.161

  Ubicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhe∣gii, sive Alexandriae, sive Tanis, ejusdem Meriti est, & ejusdem Sacerdotii, potetia divi∣tiarum & Paupertatis humilitas, vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit. Caete∣rum omnes Apostolorum Successores sunt. Hieron. ad Evagrium.
• a 1.162

  Ep. 3. p. 5.
• b 1.163

  Ep. 4. p. 9.
• c 1.164

  Ep. 59. p. 128.
• d 1.165

  Ep. 66. p. 166.
• e 1.166

  Ep. 69. p. 183.
• f 1.167

  Ep. 73. p. 201.
• g 1.168

  Ep. 75. p. 225.
• h 1.169

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. Epist. ad cor. p. mihi, 53.
• i 1.170

  Ex••rs quae∣dam & ab omnibus emi∣•••••••••• potestas.
• k 1.171

  —Et. ic∣circo quia legi∣timum & Ec∣clesiasticum Baptisma con∣secuti fuerant (quos Philip∣pus tinxerat) Baptizari cos ultra non opor∣tebat; sed tan∣tummodo quod deerat id a Pe∣tro & Joanne factum est; ut Oratione pro iis habita, & ma∣nu imposita, in∣vocaretur & infundaretur super eos Spiritus Sanctus: Quod nunc quoque apud nos Geritur, ut qui in Ecclesia Baptizan ur, Praepositis Ecclesiae offerantur, & per nostram Orationem ac manus impositionem, Spiritum Sanctum consequantur, & signaculo Dominico Consummentur. Ep. 73. p. 202.
• l 1.172

  Omnis potestas & Gratia in Ecclesia est, ubi Praesident Majores Natu, qui & Baptizandi & Manum imponendi & Ordinandi possident potestatem. Ep. 75. p. 221.
• m 1.173

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Apud Euseb. H. E. lib. 6. cap. 43.
• n 1.174

  —Solus rescribere nihil potui, quand•• a primordio Episcopatus m••i, STA∣TUERIM nihil sine consi∣lio v••siro, & sine consensu plebis, mea privatim sen∣tentia gerere. Ep. 14. p. 33.
• o 1.175

  In Ordinatio∣nibus Clericis SOLEMUS vos ante consu∣lere, & mores ac merita sin∣gulorum Com∣muni Consilio ponderare. Ep. 38 p. 74.
• p 1.176

  —Cum∣que 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vos pro 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Vicaris miserim,—Ut aetates c••rum, & Conditiones, & Merit a dis∣cerneret••s; ut jam EGO CUI CURA INCUMBIT, omnes ••ptime nossem, & dignos atque humiles & mi∣tes, ad Ecclesiasticae Administrationis ••fficia promoverem, Ep. 41. P. 79.
• q 1.177

  Addimus plane & con∣jungimus, fra∣cer c••rissime, ••onsensu & Auctoritate communi, ut etiam si qui Presbyteri ••ut Diaconi; qui vel in Ecclesia Ca∣tholica prius Ordinati fu••int, & postmod••m perfidi & R••bell••s coontra Ecclesiam ••teterins; vel apud Hereticos a PSEUDO-EPISCOPIS & Anti-Christ••s contra Christi disposi∣tion••m, profan•• Ordinatione promoti sint, & contra Altare unum atque Divinum, Sacrificia foris falsa ac Sa••ilega ••fferre conati sint; cos quoque l••••c Conditione suscipi, cum revertuntur, ut Communic••nt Laici, &c. Ep. 72. P. 197.
• r 1.178

  Caeterum Presbytcrii he∣norem designasse nos illis jam SCIATIS—S••••••uris nobiscum, provectis & corr••boratis annis suis. Ep. 39. P. 78.
• s 1.179

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eus••b. Hi••t. Eccl l. 6. c. 43.
• t 1.180

  Vide Annal. Cyp. ad Ann. 250. Sect. 21.
• u 1.181

  Id••m est No∣vatus qui quos∣dam istic ex fratribus ab Episcopo Segre∣gavit, qui in ipsa persecutio∣ne ad everten∣das fratrum ••eu••es, alia quaedam perse∣cutio nostris ••uit. Ipse est qui Felicissi∣••um satelli∣•••••••• suum, Dia∣••••nu••, nec permittente me, nec scient••, sua factione & ambitione constituit. Ep. 52. P. 97.
• v 1.182

  Et cum su•• tempestate Ro∣mam quoque Navigans ad evertendam Ec∣clesiam; similia illic & pa∣ria molitus est, a Clero porti••∣nem Pl••bis a∣vellens, Fra∣ternitatis bene sibi cohaerent is & se invicem diligentis Con∣cordiam scin∣dens, plane, quoniam pro magnitudine sua debeat Carthaginem Roma praeced••re, illic major•••• & gra••ior•• commisit: Qui istic adversus Ecclesiam, Diaconum secerat, illic Episcopum fecit, &c. Ep. 52. P. 97.
• vv 1.183

  Qu••d vero ad N••vatiani personam pertinet: F. C. de quo desiderasti tibi seribi, quam hae∣resin introd••xisset, scias nos prim•• in l••co, nce curiosos ••sse debere quid ille doceat, cum f••ris do∣ceat. Ep. 55. P. 112.
• x 1.184

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• y 1.185

  Ep. 40.
• z 1.186

  Ep. 41, & 43.
• a 1.187

  Sed & Per••••∣grinis, si qui indigentes fue∣rint, suggera∣tis, de Quanti∣tate mea pro∣pria, quam apud Rogatia∣num Compres∣byterum no∣strum dimisi—Ep. 7. P. 14.
• b 1.188

  Stipes & Ob∣lationes & Lucra desiderant, quibu•• prius insatiabiles in••ubabant, & coenis atque ••pulis etiam nunc inhiant, quarum crapulam ••••per sup••rstite indics Cruditate r••ctabant; nunc manif••stissime Comprobantes, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••te se Religioni, sed ventri potius, & quaestai, profan•••• Cupiditate serviss••. Ep. 65. P. 163.
• c 1.189

  Vide Ep 67. P. 173.
• d 1.190

  Cumque post haec ••mnia, nec Loci mei ho∣nore motus—In quo quid••m gratulor pluri∣••••••s Fratres ab hac audacia r••cessisse, & vo∣bis acqu••escere maluiss••, ••t cum Ecclesia matre reman••rent, & stipendia ••jus, EPISCOPO DISPENSANTE perciperent. Ep. 41. P 80.
• e 1.191

  Caeterum Presbyteri•• honorem designasse nos illis jam sciatis ut & sportu••is iisd m cum Pres∣byteris hon••r••ntur, & divisiones mensur••as equatis quantitatibus particu••ur. Ep. 38. P. 78.
• f 1.192

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• g 1.193

  Vid•• Clariss. Dodwel. Differt. Cyp. 1. Sect. 9.
• h 1.194

  Eus••b. H. E. I. 4. c. 23.
• i 1.195

  Bene autem & quod Epi∣scopi Universae Plebi j••junia mandare ••ssolent: Non dice de industria stipium Conferend 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at vestra captura est, s••d interdum ex aliqua solicitudinis Eccle••iasticae causa. Te••t De Jejun. cap. p 3.
• k 1.196

  —Omni igitur actu ad M E perlato, placuit contra∣hi Pr••sbyt••ri∣um—His it•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Pr••sbyteri••m venerant—Summis preci∣bus desideran∣tes ut ea quae ante fu••rant Gesta in Obli∣vion••m cede∣rent—Quod erat c••ns qu••ns, ••mnis his actus populo fuer at insinu••ndus, ut & ipsos vid••rent, in Eccl••sia constitutos—Magn••s frat••rni∣tatis concursus factus est.—Una ••r at v••x 〈◊〉〈◊〉 grati••s 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••gentium—Et ut ips••∣rum propria verba design••, nos inqui••nt Cornelium Episcop•••• sanctissimae Ecclesiae, &c. Ep. 49. P. 92, 93.
• l 1.197

  Certi famus, Frater carissi∣me, t•• quoque nobiscum pari v••to conga••dere, nos habito C••nfili••, utilitati••us Ecclesiae & paci magis Cons••••l••••tes, ••mnibus rebus pratermissis, & j••dicio Dei reservatis, cum Corneli•• EPISCOPO NOSTRO Parit••r & cum Universo cl••ro pac••n fecisse cum Gaudio 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Universae Ecclesiae, pr••na etiam omnium Caritate. Ep. 53. P. 98.
• m 1.198

  Et quoniam mihi inter••sse nunc non per∣mittit Loci conditio, Peto vos pro fide & Religione ve∣stra, fungami∣ni illic & ve∣stris partibus & mcis. Ep. 5. p. 10.
• n 1.199

  Atque uti∣nam Loci & Gradus mei conditio per∣mitteret ut IPSE nunc praesons esse possem—Sed Officium MEUM vestr•• diligentia Re∣presentet. Ep. 12. p. 27.
• o 1.200

  Hort••r & Mando—Vice mea fun∣gamini. Ep 14 P. 31.
• p 1.201

  Cum ego vos pro me Vicarios mi∣serim.—Felicissimus—accipiat senteatiam quam prior d••xit, ut Ab∣stentum se a nobis sciat:—Sed & Augendus s••nt••ntiam ferat—Et quisquis se conspirationi & factioni ejus adjunxerit, sciat se in Ecclesia nobiscum non esse Communicaturum. Ep. 41. P. 79.
• q 1.202

  Caldonius cum Herculano & Victore Collegis (i. e. Episcopis) item cum Rogatiano & Numidico Presbyteris, Cypriano salutem. Abstinuimus communicatione Felicissimum & Augendum, &c. Ep. 42. P. 81.
• r 1.203

  Nos tantum qui D••mino permittente pri∣mum Baptisma credentibus da∣mus. P. 168.
• s 1.204

  Manif••stum est, aut ubi & per quos Remis∣sa peccatorum da••i potest, quae in Baptismo scilicet dat••r; nam Petro pri∣mum Dominus, ••••per quem ••dificavit Ecclesiam, & unde unitatis Originem instituit & ostendit, potestatem ••••tem dedit ut id solveritur in Caelis quod ille solvisset in Terris. Et post R••surrectionem quoque ••d Apostolos loquitur, dicens, Sicut misit me Pater, &c.—Unde intelligimus non ni••i in Ecclesia praepositis, & in Evangelica lege ac Dominica Ordinatione fundatis, licere Bapti∣zare, & Remissum peccat••rum dare: Foris autem nec lig••ri aliquid posse nec solvi, ubi non sit q••i aut ligari possit, aut solvere. Nec hoc F. C. sine Scripturae divine Auctoritate proponimus, ut dicamus certa lege cuncta esse disposita nec posse quenquam contra Episcopos & Sacerd••tes Usur∣p••re sibi aliquid, quod non sit sui juris & potestatis; nam & Chore, & Dathan & Abyron, contra Moysen & Aaron Sacerdotem sacrifi••andi sibi Licentiam Usurpare conati sunt: N••c 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quod illicite ausi sunt, impune s••cerunt. Ep. 73. P. 201.
• t 1.205

  Iesus Christus Dominus noster & Deus, Dei Patris & Crea∣toris Filius, super Petram aedificavit Ecclesiam suam, non super Haeresin; & Potestatem Baptizandi Epi∣scopis dedit, non Haereticis: Quare qui extra Ecclesiam sunt, & contra Christum stantes, oves ••jus & Gregem spargunt, Baptizari non possunt. Conc. Carth. Suff. 17.
• u 1.206

  Dandi quidem jus habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus; dehinc Presbyter•• & Diaconi, won tamen sine Episcopi Auctoritate. Cap. 17.
• v 1.207

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Ad Smyrn. p. 6.
• vv 1.208

  Hi sublat•• honore qu••m n••∣bis beati Mar∣tyres—Ser∣vant, contempt•••• Domini lege—quam iidem Martyres—tenendam man∣da••t—ante reditum no∣strum Commu∣municent cum lapsis, & offe∣rant, & Eucha∣ristiam tra∣d••nt. Ep. 16. P. 38.
• x 1.209

  Honor ergo datur Deo, quando sic Dei Maj••stas & Censura con∣temnitur ut cum se ille indignari & irasci Sacrificantibus dicat, & ne ira cogitetur Dei; ne ti∣meatur judicium Domini; ne puls••tur ad Ecclesiam Christi: Sed sublata paenitentia, nec ulla e•• homologesi Criminis facta, Despectis Episcopis atque Calcatis, Pax a Presbyteris verbis fallacibus praedicetur & Communicatio a non Communicantibus offeratur. Ep. 59. P. 135.
• y 1.210

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Euseb. H. E. lib. 6. c••p. 14.
• * 1.211

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ign. ad Smyrn p. 6.
• a 1.212

  Nam &c Co∣re, & Dathan, & Abyron, cum Sacerdote Aaron & Moyse, eundem Deum noverant, pari leg•• & Religio•••• viventes, ••um & verum Deum qui 〈◊〉〈◊〉 atque invoc••ndus fuer••s, inv••••abant. Taman qu•••• Loci sui Ministerium transgressi contra Aaron Sacerdotem, qui Sacerdotlum legitim••m Dignatione Dei atque Ordinatione percep••rat, Sacrificandi sibi Licentiam vindicar••nt, Divinitus percussi—Nec 〈◊〉〈◊〉 rata ess•• & proficere Sacrificia, irreligiose & illicite contra jus Divinae disposi∣tionis oblata.—Et tamen illi Schisma non fecerant; n••c for as egressi—Quod nunc hi Ecclesiam scindentes, & contra pa••em & unitatem Christi rebelles, Cathedram sibi consti∣tuere, & primatum assumere, & Baptizandi atque Offerendi licentiam vindi••are conantur. Ep. 69. P. 184.
• a 1.213

  Vi••e ••p. 43. & vit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 po••••ea 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• b 1.214

  Sollicitudo Loci nostri, & timor Domini compellit, for∣tissimi & ••eatissimi Martyres, admonere vos literis ••ostris, ut a quibus tam devote & fortiter servatur fides Domino, ab iisdem Lex quoque & Disciplina Domini reservetur. Nam cum omnes milites Christi custodire oporteat praecepta imperatoris sui, tum vos magis praeceptis ejus obtempe∣rare plus convenit, qui exemplum caeteris facti estis & virtutis & tim••ris Dei. Et credideram quidem Presbyteros & Diaconos qui illic praesentes sunt, monere vos & instruere plenissime circa Evangelii legem, sicut in praeteritum s••mper sub Antecessoribus nosiris factum est—Sed ••unc cum maximo a••••imi dolore cognosco, non tantum illic vo••is non suggeri Divina Praecept••••, sed adhuc potius impediri, ut ea—a quibusdam Presbyteris r••solvantur, qui nec timorem Dei, nec Episcopi honorem cogitantes—Contra Evangelii legem— ante actam paeniten∣tiam, ante exomologesin gravissimi atque extremi delicti factam, ante manum ab Episcopo & clero in paenitentiam impositam, offerre pro illis, & Eucharistiam dare, i. e. sanctum Domini Corpus profanare audeant.—Et Lapsis quidem potest in hoc venia concedi: Quis enim no•••• mortuus vivificari properet? Quis non ad salutem suam venire festinet? Sed praeposit••••rum est prae∣cept••••m tenere, & vel properantes, vel ignorantes instrucre, ne qui ovium Pastores esse debe••••••. Lanii fiant.—Petitiones & desideria vestra Episcopo servent, &c. Ep. 15. P. 33, 34.
• c 1.215

  Vide De Lapsis, P. 129, 131, 138. Ep. 16. P. 37. EP. 17. P. 39. Ep. 36. P. 70.
• d 1.216

  Di•• patien∣tiam m••am te∣nui. F. C. quasi verccundum silentium n••strum pr••ficeret ad quiet••m. S••d cum qu••r••ndam immeder••ta & ab∣rupta praesumptio, temeritate sua, & honorem Martyrum, & Confessorum pudorem, & Pl••bi•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tranqui••••ia••em turbare conetur, tacere ultra non oportet.—Quid enim non pericu∣lum metuere deb••••us de offensa Domini; quando aliqui de Presbyteris, nec Evangelii, n••c Loci sui memores; sed n••que futurum Dom••ni judicium, neque n••nc sibi Praepositum Episco∣pum cogitantes, quod nunquam ••mnin•• sub antecessoribus factum est, cum Contumeli•• & C••n∣temptu Praepositi totum sibi vindicnt? Cont••••umeliam Episcopatus nostri dissimulare & ferre possem, sicut dissimulavi semper & pertuli, sed dissimulandi nunc L••cus non est, quand•• decipia∣••ur fratcrnitas nostra, a quibusdam vestrum; qui du•• si••e rati••ne restituendae salutis plausibil••s esse cupiunt, magis Lapsis obsunt—Exponunt deinde invidiae Beatos Martyres, & Glorios••s s••rvos Dei cum Dei Sacerdot•• committunt.—Interim Temerarii & Incauti & Tumid•• quidam inter vos, qui hominem non cogitent, vel Deum timeant; scientes quoniam si ••ltra in iisdi•• pers••veraverint, utar ea admonitione, qua me uti Dominus jubet, ut interim prohibeantu•• offerre; Acturi & apud nos & apud Conf••ssores ipsos, & apud Plebem universam, causam suam, cum, D••m••na permittence, in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 matris Ecclesiae Colligi caeperimus. Ep. 16. P. 36, 37, 38. imo l••ge totam Epist.
• e 1.217

  Audio tamen quosdam de Presbyteris ne•• Evangelii memores—Nec Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui & Cathedrae r••servantes, jans cum Lapsis communicare caepisse—Vos quid••m Nostri Presbyteri & Dia∣coni 〈…〉〈…〉 as sibi Oves fov••rent.—Eg•• Plebis nostrae & quietem 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pariter & tim••rem, qui in satisfactione Dei & deprecatione vigilar••nt, nisi illos quidem de Presbyteris GRATIFICANTES dec••pissent. Vel vos itaque' singulos regite, & Consilio ac M••deratione v••stra, & secundum divina praec••pta Lapsorum anim••s temperate, &c. Ep. 17. P. 39.
• f 1.218

  Miror v••s, F. C. ad mul∣tas Epistolas meas qua•• ad vos frequenter, misi, nunqua••t mihi rescrip∣sisse, cum fraternitatis n••strae vel utilitas vel necessitas sic utique guber••••tur, s•• •• vobis in∣structi, rerum gerendarum Consilium limare po••••mus. Ep. 18. P. 40.
• g 1.219

  Rational De∣fence of Non-Conformity, P. 179.
• h 1.220

  Ad has l••∣quimur, has ad hortamur ••ffectione po∣tius quam po∣testate: Non quod extremi & minimi & humilitatis no∣strae admodum conscii, aliquid adCensuram li∣centiae vindice∣mus, &c. De Hab. Virg. p. 94.
• i 1.221

  Si nos Domi∣nus humiles & quietos—Conspexerit, tutos ab inimi∣ci infestationi∣bus exhibebit. Ep. 11. P. 26.
• k 1.222

  Et quisquam per ipsum (Christum) nunc, atque in ipso vivens ext••llere se audet & superbire? Ep. 13. P. 30.
• l 1.223

  Vide Superius Citata, ex Ep. 16.
• m 1.224

  Nec nos putes, F. C. nostra & human•••• conscribere, at ultronea voluntate hoc nobis auda∣cter assumere, cum Mediocritatem nostram semper humili & verecunda m••deratione ten••amus. Ep. 63. P. 148.
• n 1.225

  Humilitatem meam & Fratres omnes, & Gentiles quoque optime norunt & diligunt. Ep. 66. P. 166.
• o 1.226

  Et enim omnibus in Tractatu major, in Sermone facundior, in Consilio sapientior, in pati∣entia simplicior, in Operibus largior, in Abstinentia sanctio••, in Obsequio humilior, & in actu bon•• innocentior. Ep. 77. P. 234.
• P 1.227

  Pectus illud tuum Candidum ac Beatum—Ep. 78. P. 235.—De Animi 〈◊〉〈◊〉—Ep. 79. P. 236.
• q 1.228

  Pontius in vi•• a Cyp. P. 3.
• r 1.229

  Non me ter∣ret Auctoritas Cypriani, quiae reficit humili∣tas Cypriani. August. l. 2. De Baptism••.
• s 1.230

  Quam pericu∣losum sit ••ut••m in Divinis re∣bus ut quis ce∣dat jure 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & po••estate, &c. Ep. 73. p. 209.
• t 1.231

  L••gi literas vestras, F. C. quibus scripsi∣st is salubre Con∣silium vestrum non deesse fra∣tribus nostris, ut temeraria festi••atione deposita••, Religios••m patientiam Deo praebeant, ut cum in unum per ejus mis••ricordiam venerimus, de omnibus speciebus secundu••m Ecclesiasticam Disci∣plinam tractare possimus.—Quoniam tamen significastis quosdam immoderatos ••sse & Com∣municationem accipiendam festinanter urgere; Et. desiderastis in hac re FORMAM •• me vabis dari, &c. Ep. 19. p. 41.
• u 1.232

  Item Presby∣teris & Diaco∣nibus non defui•• Sacerdotii vi∣gor, ut quidam D••sciplinae minus m••mores, & t••meraria festinatione praecipites qui tam lapsis communicare jam caeperant compri••mer••••tur. Ep. 20. p. 43.
• v 1.233

  Page
• vv 1.234

  Quanqua•• nobi•• diff••r••n∣dae h••jus rei necess••tas major incumbat, qui∣bus, post exces∣sum nobilissimae memoriae viri Fabiani, nen∣dum est Episco∣pus propter re∣••••••n & te••porum difficultates constitutus, qui ••mnia ist•••• mod••r••tur, & eorum qui Lapsi sunt possi•• cum AUCTORITATE & Consilio habere Rationem. Ep. 30. p. 59.
• x 1.235

  Q••anquam nobis in tam ingenti negotio place at quod & tu ipse tractasti, prius Ecclesiae pa∣••••m sustinendum, deinde, sic collatione Cons••lior••m cum Episcopis, Presbyteris, Diaconis, Confesso∣r••bus p••••riter ac st••ntibus lai••is facta, Laps••ram tractar•• rationem. Perquam ••nim nobis & invidiosum & On••rosum vid••••••r, non per mult••s Examinare, quod per ••ultos Comm••ssum videa∣tur fuisse; & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sententiam dicere cum tam grande Crimen per mul••os diffusum not••tur exisse; quoniam nec••firmum d••cr••••••um pot•••••• esse••quod non plurimorum v••debitur habuisse consen∣sum. Ibid.
• y 1.236

  Cujus tempe∣ram••nti Mode∣ramen nos hic tenere quaerentes, diu, & quide•• m••lti, & quidem cum quibusdam Episc••pi•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nobis & appropinquantibus & quos ex aliis provinciis longe p••sit is Persecutionis i••tius ardor ej••••••rat, antc Constitu••ionem Episcopi nih••l i••••ovandum put avimus, sed L••psorum curam Medi••∣criter temperandam esse Credidimus, ut, in••erim, dum Episcopus dari a Deo nobis sustinetur, in suspenso ••orum qui Moras possunt dilationis sustin••r••, caus•••• t••neatur. Ibid. p. 60.
• z 1.237

  Et cum in∣cumbit nobis qui VIDEMUR praep••siti esse, & VICE PA∣STORIS cu∣stod••re Gregem. Ep. 8. p. 16.
• a 1.238

  Sed ipsos cohor∣tati s••••us & hortamur ager•• p••••nitentiam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 qu••m••do indul∣gentiam p••te∣runt recipere ab ••O QUI PO∣TEST PRAE∣STARE. Ibid. p. 17.
• b 1.239

  Quarum jam ••ausa audita, praeceperunt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Praep••siti tan∣tisper sic esse, donec Episco∣pus Consti∣tuatur. Ep. 2•• p. 46.
• c 1.240

  Pete ergo Cy∣priane carissi∣m•• ut nos gr••∣tia su•• Dominus—armet & illustret—Cui ••nim magis haec ut pro nobis p••tat, mandare debemus, quam tam Glorioso Episcopo?—Ecce aliud gaudium nostrum quod in Officio Epi∣scopatus tui, licet interim, a fratribus pro temporis conditione distractus es, tamen non de∣fu••sti—Animadvertimus enim te congruente censura & eos digne ••bj••rgass••, qui immemores ••elictorum su••rum, pac••m a Presbyteris, p••r absentiam tuam, f••stinata & praecipiti cupiditate extorsissent, & ILLOS qui ••ine respectu Evangelii, Sanctum Dom••ni Ganibus, & Margari∣•••••• por••is, profan•• facilitate donassent. Ep. 31.
• d 1.241

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Can. Ap. 39.
• e 1.242

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ignat. Epist. p. 6.
• f 1.243

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 P. 7.
• g 1.244

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 P. 13.
• h 1.245

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 P. 20.
• hh 1.246

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 P. 43.
• i 1.247

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 P. 47
• k 1.248

  Meminisse autem Diaconi debent, quoniam Apostolos, i. e. Episcop••s & Praepositos Do∣minus elegit: Diaconos autem post ascensum Domini in Cae∣los Apostoli sibi constituerunt Episcopatus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & Ecclesiae Ministros—Et ideo op••rtet Diaconum de quo scribis ag••re ••udaciae suae paenit••ntiam & honorem Sac••rdotis agnoscere, & Episcopo PRAEPOSITO su•• pl••na humilitate satisfacere. Ep. 3. p. 6.
• l 1.249

  In quo vobis quoque plurimum gratulor quod ••jus m••moriam tam celebri & illustri testimo∣nio pros••quamini, ut per vos innotescat nobis quod & vobis ess••t ••••rca PRAEPOSITI memo∣riam Gloriosum, & nobis qu••que fidei a•• virtutis praeberet Exemplum. Ep. 9. p. 19.
• m 1.250

  Nam cum gaudere in hoc omnes fratres opor••et, tum in gaudio communi major est Episcopi portio: Eccle••iae enim Gloria, PRAEPOSITI Gloria ••st. Ep. 13.
• n 1.251

  Vide supra, 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• o 1.252

  Quam unita∣tem firmiter te∣n••re & vindi∣care d••bemus, maxime Episco∣pi qui in Eccle∣sia PRAESI∣DEMUS. De Unit. Eccl. p. 108.
• p 1.253

  Misimus au∣t••m ••sest••rtium c••nt••m millia nummum, quae istic in Ecclesia cui Domini indulgentia PRAESUMUS, Cleri & Plebis apud nos consistentis collatione collecta sunt. Ep. 62. p. 147.
• q 1.254

  Inde enim Schismata & Haereses obortae sunt & Oriuntur, d••••m Episcopus qui unus est & Ecclesiae PRAEEST, superba quorundam praesumptione cont••mnitar—Ep. 66. p. 167.
• r 1.255

  Optaveram quidem F. C. ut Universum clerum NO∣STRUM in∣tegrum & inco∣lumem meis li∣teris salu••arem. Ep. 14. p. 31.
• s 1.256

  Vos quidem n••stri Presbyte∣ri & Diaconi, monere debuerant—Ep. 17. p. 39.
• t 1.257

  Et quoniam oportuit me per Cler••cos scribere, sci•• autem NOSTROS plurimos abesse—Ep. 29. P. 55.
• u 1.258

  Ut ••um cler•• NOSTRO Dominus adjunger••t, & desolatam per Lapsum quorundam PRESBYTERII NOSTRI copiam Gloriosis Sacordotibus adornaret. Ep. 40. p. 79.
• v 1.259

  Urbanus & Sidonius Confessores ad Presbyters NOSTROS venerunt. Ep. 49. p. 92.
• vv 1.260

  Interea••••••••si quis imm••deratus & praeceps, ••ive de NOSTRIS Presbyteris vel Diaco∣nis—Ep. 34. p. 68.
• x 1.261

  Ad te, Exempl•••• literarum—miseram, quae de ••odem Felicissimo & de Presbyterio 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉 istic NOSTRUM—scripseram. Ep. 45. p. 8••.
• y 1.262

  —Cum Cornelio Epi∣sc••p•• NOSTRO pariter & cum universo cler•• pacem fecisse—Ep. 53. p. 98.
• z 1.263

  Et tu quid••m ••••••orifice circa nos, & pro soli∣••a tua humili∣••at•• facisti, ut malles de co Conqueri cum pro Episcopatus vigore & Cathedrae Auctorita•••• haberes potestatem, qua posses de illo statim vindicari. Ep. 3. p. 5.
• a 1.264

  Oportet Diaconum, agere audaciae suae paenitentiam, & honorem Sucerdotis agnoscere—
• b 1.265

  Qu••d si ultr•• te Contumeliis suis exacerbav••rit & pr••vocaveri••, fungeris ciroa cum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 state honoris 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ut ••um vel DEPONAS vel ABSTINEAS.
• c 1.266

  Et si qui a∣lii tales extite∣rint, & contra Sacerdotem Dei fecerint, vel COERCERE poteris, v••l AB∣STINERE.
• d 1.267

  —SACERDOTALI LICENTIA—Ibid. p. 6, 7.
• e 1.268

  Hoc enim quorundam Presbyterorum malignitas & perfidia perfe∣cit, ne ad vos ante diem Pa∣schae venire licuisset: Dum Conjurationis suae memores, & antiqua illa contra Epi∣scopatum me∣um—ve∣n••na retin••ntes, instaurant veterem contra nos impugnationem suam, & Sacrilegas Machinationes insidiis solitis denuo revocant. Et quidem de Dei providentia nobis hoc nec volentibus, nec optantibus, imo & ignoscentibus, & tacentibus, p••••nas quas meruerant rependerunt, ut a nobis non ••jecti, ultro se ej••cerent; ipsi in se, pro Conscientia sua, s••ntentiam darent;—Conjurati & Scelesti de Ec∣clesia sponte se pell••rent. Ep. 43. p. 81, 82.
• f 1.269

  Invitus dico, s••d dicam necesse est: Quidam illi restiterunt, etiam ut vinceret. Quibus tamen quanta l••nitate, quam patienter, quam b••nevolenter indulsit, quam Clementer ignovit, amicissimos cos postmodum & inter nec••ssarios computans, mirantibus multis? Cui enim possit non esse Miraculo, tam memoriosae mentis oblivio? P••nt. in Vita Cyp. p. 3, 4.
• g 1.270

  Int••rea si quis immodera∣tus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 praeceps sive de nostris Presbyteris v••l Diaconibus, ••ive de P••regrinis, ausus fuerit ante SENTENTIAM NOSTRAM Communicare cum Lapsis, a Communicatione nostra acceatur; apud omines 〈◊〉〈◊〉 n••s c••us••m 〈…〉〈…〉 Permittente Do∣mino, conve••••••••••nus. Ep. 34. p. 68.
• h 1.271

  Si quis au∣tem paenitenti∣am agere, & D••o satisfacere detrectans, ad Felicissimi & satellitum ejus partes concesse∣rit, & se haere∣ticae factioni c••••junx••rit; sciat se postea ad Ecclestam redire & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Episcopis & Plebe Christi C••mmunicare non posse. Ep. 43. p. 85.
• i 1.272

  Vide Ep. 45. p. 98.
• k 1.273

  Legi literas tuas, F. C.—quibus significasti, Felicissimum host••m Christi—abstentum & non tantum me••, sed plurimor••m Co-episcoporum sententia condemnat••m 〈…〉〈…〉 illic ••sse rejectum, &c. Ep. 59. P. 126.
• l 1.274

  Ep. 55, & 68
• m 1.275

  Lib. 13. c. 14.
• n 1.276

  Privatus Lambesitanus—Fortunatum sibi Pseudo-Episcopum dignum COLLEGIO SUO fe∣••it. Ep. 59. P. 132.
• o 1.277

  —Ut Plebe pr••••sente vel detegantur ma∣lorum Crimina vel bonorum merita praedi∣centur—Episcopus deligatur Plebe praesente quae singulorum vit••m plenissime 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vit, &c. Ep. 67. P. 172.
• p 1.278

  Ibid.
• q 1.279

  Ep. 45. P. 87.
• r 1.280

  De Cypri••∣no Metropo∣litano, Vide Ep. 43. p. 82. Ep. 44. p. 85. Ep. 45. p. 87. Ep. 48. p. 91. Ep. 55. p. 110. Ep. 56. p. 116. Vide etiam Conc. Carthag, De Agrippino, Ep. 71. p. 196. Ep. 73. p. 199.
• s 1.281

  Metropolitanor••m, seu Episcoporum in Urbe Matrice, vel prima sede, sua fuerunt, hac ••tate, supra reliquos ejusdem Provinciae jura. Spanhem. Epit. I say. ad H. E. N. T. Saec. 3. Sect. 6. p. 117.
• t 1.282

  Ep. 44. p. 83.
• u 1.283

  Ep. 59. p. 135.
• v 1.284

  Collegis om∣nibus fidelit••r junctu. Ep. 59. p. 130.
• w 1.285

  Ep. 45.
• x 1.286

  Et factus est Episcopus a plurimis Colle∣gis nostris qui tun•• in Urbe Roma aderant, qui ad n••s lit••ras h••m••rificas & laudabiles, & testimonio su•• praedicationis illustres, de ejus Ordinatione miserunt, Ep. 55. p. 104.
• y 1.287

  Iccirco enim, F. C. copiosum corpu•• est Sa∣ccrdotum con∣cordiae mutuae glutino, atque unitatis vincu∣lo copulatum, ut si quis ex Collegio nostro baer••sin facere, & Gregem Christi lacera∣re & vastare t••ntavr••t, subveniant cae∣t••ri, & quasi Pastores utiles & m••sericor∣d••s, oves Do∣minic••s in Gre∣gem colligant. Ep. 68. p. 178.
• z 1.288

  Nam etsi Pastores multi sumus, unum tam••n Gr••g••m pascimus. Ibid.
• a 1.289

  —S••latium nostrae ••pitul••tionis—Ibid. p. 177.
• b 1.290

  Ep. 59. p. 126.
• c 1.291

  Ep. 44
• d 1.292

  —Librato apud nos, diu, Consilio, satis fuit Objurgare Therapium Collegam nostrum, quod tem••re h••c fecerit—pacem t••men quomodocunqu•• a Sacerdote Dei s••mel d••tam, non p••tavimus aufere••dam, ac per hoc Victori communicatione•• sibi concessam usurpare permisimus. Ep. 64. p. 158.
• e 1.293

  Ep 55. p. 102, 103.
• f 1.294

  Ep. 67. P. 174.
• g 1.295

  Ep. I. p. I.
• h 1.296

  Vide Euseb. H. E. l. 5. a c. 23. ad c. 28.
• i 1.297

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 30.
• k 1.298

  Et quoniam oportuit me per Clericos scribe∣re—Ep. 29. p. 55.
• i 1.299

  Librum tibi cum Epistolis numero quinque mist—Quae Epist••l•• jam plurimis Collegis nostris missae placu••runt, & rescripserunt se quoque nobiscum in ••••dem Consili•• secundum Catholicam fidem stare; quod ipsum et••am-tu ad Coll••gas nostros, quos p••tueris transmitte; ut apud omnes unus Actus, & una Consentio secundum Domini praecepta t••∣neatur. Ep. 25. p. 50.
• m 1.300

  Ep. 55. p. 102.
• n 1.301

  Ep. 47.
• o 1.302

  —Et miserim tibi proxime nomina Episcoporum istic constituto∣rum qui inte∣gri & sani in Ecclesia Catho∣lica fratribus praesunt. Quod utique ideo de omnium nostrorum C••nf••lio placuit scribere; ••t ••rroris diluendi—c••mpendium fieret, & sciru ••u & College n••strl, quibus scribere, & literas mutuo a quibus vos accipere op••rteret. Ep. 59. p. 132.
• p 1.303

  Significa plane nobis quis in locum Marciani Arelate fuerit substitutus, ut sciam••s 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quem fratres nostros dirigere, & cui scribere debeamus. Ep. 68. p. 179.
• q 1.304

  Oportet n••s t••men pac•• c••mmuni consu∣••re, & in••er∣dum deesse vo∣bis, ne PRAE∣SENTIA NOSTRI INVIDIAM ET VIO∣LENTIAM GENTILIUM PROVOCET. Ep. 7. p. 14.
• r 1.305

  Atque utinam LOCI & GRADUS mei con∣d••••••o permitt••r••t, ut IPSE PRAESENS esse possem, Ep. 12. p. 27.
• s 1.306

  Nam sic••t Domini man∣data instruunt, ort•• statim tur∣bationis impetu primo, cum ME cl••more violen∣to frequenter popul••s flagi∣tasset, non tam mean salutem quam quietem fratrum p••blicam cogi••ans, interim s••cessi ne per INVERECUNDAM PRAESENTIAM NOSTRAM, seditio quae caeperat, plus pr••vocaretur. Ep. 20. p. 42.
• t 1.307

  Acc••ssi•• ••uic tabescenti animo nostro Dolor major, qu••d in tanta sollicitud••ne, ac necessitat••, excurrere ad vos IPSE non possum; dum per minas & per insidias perfid••rum Cavemus, ••e. ADVENIENTIBUS NOBIS Tumultus illic major oriatur; & cum paci & tranquil∣litati EPISCOPUS Providere in omnibus debeat, IPSE materiam Seditioni dedisse, & Persecutionem exacerbasse videatur. Ep. 43. p. 83.
• u 1.308

  Ep. 43. p. 83.
• v 1.309

  —a. Ter∣tullo—qui etiam ••uj••s C••••silii auctor suit, ut cautus & m••leratus ••x••ster••m, ne me in conspectum publicum, & maxime ejus loci ubi toties flagita∣t•••• & quasitus fuissem, temere commiiterem. Fretns ergo Dilectione & Religion•• vestra, quam satis novi, his literis & Hor••••r & Mondo ut VOS quor••m minime illic INVIDIOSA, & non ••deo▪ PERICULOSA PRAESENTIA est, VIGEMEA 〈◊〉〈◊〉, &c. Ep. 14. p. 31.
• w 1.310

  —in tempestate pro∣s••riptus, appli∣cito & adjuncto EPISCOPA∣TUS SUI NO∣MINE, tot••es ad Leonem pe∣titus, &c. Ep. 59. p. 130.
• x 1.311

  Si quis tenet vel possidet de bouis Caecil•• i Cypriani Epi∣scopi Christianorum: Ut ••••iam qui non credebant Deo Episcopum constitu••nti, vel Diabol•• crede∣••••nt Episcopum pr••scribenti. Ep. 66. p. 166.
• y 1.312

  Vide Pont. in vita Cyp. p. 9, 10.
• z 1.313

  Cum mult•• patientius at∣que tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se aemulum prin∣cipem, quam constitui Romae Dei Sacerdo∣tem. Ep. 55. p. 104.
• a 1.314

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Euseb. H. E. l. 6. c. 24.
• b 1.315

  Nec interest unde Episcopo aut terror aut periculum ve∣niat, qui terro∣ribus & peri∣culis vivit ob∣noxius. Ep. 59. p. 126.
• c 1.316

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Euseb, l. 7. c. 13.