Wesley Corpus

5. I observe you take much the same liberty in your next quotation from Cyprian. 'He threatens,' you say, 'to execute what he was ordered to do " against them in a vision "' (page 102). Here also the last words, 'in a vision,' are an improvement upon the text. Cyprian's words are, 'I will use that admonition which the Lord commands me to use.' ['Utar ea admonitione, qua me Dominus uti jubet' (Epis. ix.).] But neither was this in order to introduce any questionable point either of doctrine or discipline, no more than his using the same threat to Pupianus, who had spoken ill of him and left his communion. 6. You go on: 'He says likewise he was admonished of God to ordain one Numidicus, a confessor, who had been left for dead, half burnt and buried in stones' (pages 103-4). True; but what 'questionable point of doctrine or discipline' did he introduce hereby or by ordaining Celerinus, 'who was overruled and compelled by a divine vision to accept that office' So you affirm Cyprian says. But Cyprian says it not--at least, not in those words which you cite in the margin, which, literally translated, run thus: 'I recommend to you Celerinus, joined to our clergy, not by human suffrage, but by the divine favour.' ['Non humane suffragatione, sed divina dignatione,conjunctum' (Epis xxxiv.).] 'In another letter, speaking of Aurelius, whom he had ordained a reader, he says to his clergy and people, " In ordaining clergy, my dearest brethren, I use to consult you first; but there is no need to wait for human testimonies when the divine suffrage has been already signified."' An impartial man would wonder what you could infer from these five passages put together. Why, by the help of a short postulatum, 'He was fond of power' (you have as much ground to say, 'He was fond of bloodshed'), you will make it plain, 'this was all a trick to enlarge his episcopal authority.' But as that postulatum is not allowed, you have all your work to begin again.