who exercised their Ministry among you blamelesly Brethren c. All that needs be answered hereunto is 1. Clement manifestly teaches elsewhere that the Schism arose on the account of one or two Persons p. 62. 'T is says He a shame an arrant shame and unworthy a Christians Conversation that the ancient and most firmly established Church of Corinth should raise Sedition against the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one or two Persons that there being a Difference among them about their Bishop that Generous Person it must needs follow that the Presbyters were involved in the Controversy and by Consequence that some of 'em were deserted and laid aside by those of the People who had an aversion to the Bishop that Generous Person so oft mentioned as well as to some of the Presbyters who stuck close to him 2. It may reasonably be thought that the two Persons here spoken of were the Bishop in Possession and the other whom the Corinthians would have advanced into his 〈◊〉 In short if 〈◊〉 if what on this Head has been offered for the clearing the 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the meaning of the Epistle which to us at this distance is dark enough be of any moment it may then be allowed that Clement has intimated that there was at Corinth a Prelatical Bishop and that the Reason why he makes no plainer mention of him but was forced himself to interpose in procuring the Peace of the Church of Corinth was the Prejudices a great part of the Presbyters and People had conceived against their Bishop who was 〈◊〉 unable by his own Authority to allay the Heats and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'em and for that cause was advised by Clement Voluntarily to surrender his Office and depart It is not an uncommon thing for Authors to comprehend three Orders of Church-Officers in two Words or at least to mention two Orders only when yet they acknowledge a Third This Dichotomy is to be met with in the Scripture it self The three Officers of the Jewish Church are frequently expressed by Priests and 〈◊〉 wherein 〈◊〉 High-Priest who without controversy was a Third is included 〈◊〉 himself in this Epistle takes notice That the Priests and Levites came out of Abraham's 〈◊〉 meaning the High-Priest also as I presume will not be denyed For he also came out of the Loins of Abraham Clemens Alexand in his 〈◊〉 cited by Mr. O. speaks there only of the two Orders Presbyters and Deacons in the Christian Church and yet elsewhere he reckons up expresly the Bishops also with the other two In the former place 〈◊〉 Presbyters must comprehend Bishops at least they ought not to be excluded though the Author there omits them So 〈◊〉 in his Apologetick comprehends Bishops and Presbyters under one common Name Seniores yet he 〈◊〉 distinguishes the Three Orders in Lib. de Baptismo c. 17. Optatus Milevit an hundred times o'er acknowledges the three Orders yet once he contents himself to express 'em in two Words only Bishops and Deacons There are says he in the place cited on the Margin quatuor genera 〈◊〉 Four Orders of Men in the Church but he sums 'em up in three Words viz. Bishops Deacons and the Faithful It may deserve observation that at this time of the Day and with Optatus ordinarily Bishop signify'd the Prelate of a Church shall I then be allowed hence to infer there were either no Presbyters or no Prelatical Bishops according to this Fathers Judgment because forsooth He here mentions 'em not distinctly It cannot be fairly Collected hence as every one 〈◊〉 This is manifest that Optatus in those two Words Bishops and Deacons must understand the three Orders Bishops Presbyters and Deacons else He loses one of his four Orders of Men in the Church Besides saying here sicut supra dixi he refers us backward to p. 16. and p. 51. in both which places he mentions 〈◊〉 Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Wherefore the Premisses considered 't is reasonable to believe that Clemens Romanus likewise did in the same manner express the three Offices of the 〈◊〉 Church in two Words comprehending the Prelate in Bishops and Deacons It ought not here to be forgot what St. Chrysostom has observed 〈◊〉 of old were called Bishops also and 〈◊〉 for in deed Presbyters in some things resemble both They Minister like Deacons unto the Bishop-whilst he Officiates and are subject unto him as the other are But they Minister in the Word and Sacraments as well as the Bishop does and have under him the over-sight of some part of the Flock for which reason they may not incongruously be called Bishops But Blundel and his Followers I remember to reconcile unto their own Hypothesis the different way of the Fathers reckoning up the Ministerial Orders of the Christian Church asserts that sometimes they conform their Language to the Scripture and Apostolical Age At other times to their own Customs and the Ecclesiastical Constitutions In the former case they use the Dichotomy mentioning only Presbyters or Bishops and Deacons in the latter they divide 'em into three Ranks Bishops and Priests and Deacons But this device will not do their Work and must be laid aside for the following Reasons 1. St. Cyprian against whose Testimony for Episopacy this Distinction was principally levelled and framed though He often falls into the Dichotomy yet asserts the Divine Right of Bishops Cum hoc igitur sicut omnis Actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur divina lege fundatum sit The Government of the Church by Bishops is says He founded upon a Divine Law That the Praepositi here are meant Bishops is not to be doubted of if we look backward unto the foregoing parts of this Epistle He begins it thus Our Lord whose precepts we ought to Reverence and Observe establishing the Honour of the Bishop and the Churches affairs says c. And again he adds Hence the Ordination of Bishops and the Affairs of the Church pass through the course of 〈◊〉 and Successions so that the Church is established on Bishops and every Act of the Church is governed per eosdem Praepositos by the same Praepositi that is Bishops If then Bishops were by Divine Right in the Judgment of Cyprian he must speak in the Language of the Apostolical Age where the Divine Right ends as well as his own when he reckons up the three distinct Orders of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons But of this see more in Mr. Dodwell's 10th Cypr. Dissertation Nor can these Praepositi and Episcopi be understood of Presbyters for Cyp. whatever any may fancy of Praepositi never calls Presbyters Bishops Nor could he conformably to his own Writings He professes thus of himself and other Bishops Neq enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops But if the Presbyters were Bishops then Cyprian was a Bishop of Bishops 2. Optatus in the same Breath in one
was no Ordination but conferring the extraordinary Gift of the Spirit which Philip could not do Mr. O. forgot to take notice of the whole Argument but Answers it by halves I urg'd that Philip had the extraordinary and Miraculous Gift of the Spirit which was usually conferred by Imposition of hands that though he had this Gift yet he could not give it that therefore they who have a Gift yet may not have power to conferr that Gift and by consequence that those Persons who are ordain'd to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments it does not follow that they can Ordain which was the thing to be prov'd There is nothing that I perceive meriting any Reply until we come to that piece of Discipline 1 Cor. 5. where we read of the Incestuous Corinthian Excommunicated as I contend by the Authority and Command of St. Paul But Mr. O. insinuates that the Apostle reproves the Corinthians for not excommunicating the Sinner themselves 1 Cor. 5. 2. Ans. This verse proves it not The expression is in the Passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Offender might be taken away By whom Why not by the Apostle He may as well be thought to chide 'em for not informing him of the misdemeanour to the end the Offender might be delivered unto Satan by St. Paul himself The whole Story as we shall shew Countenances this Interpretation Ay but says the Minister the Apostle enjoins the Corinthians to avoid disorderly walkers v. 13. Ans. But this is by the Apostles express commandment still Besides to put away from among themselves that wicked Person is not to deliver him to Satan or to expel him the Church but Not to eat with him v. 11. that is not to have any Familiarity with him in civil Conversation In this the Apostle does indeed declare v. 12. that the Corinthians had power to Judge with whom they might be Familiar and with whom not But it does not hence follow they had power to Excommunicate Now that it was St. Paul who judged and decreed and gave theSentence of Excommuncation against the Offender will appear plainly if we read the first part of the 3 d verse with the 5 th v. for all the rest is a Parenthesis Thus then let us put 'em close together v. 3. For I verily as absent in Body but present in Spirit have determined already then v. 5. to deliver such an one unto Satan For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be governed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Excommunication most certainly proceeded from the Apostle It is also worthy consideration that the Corinthians did not receive again into their Communion this Excommunicated Person until the Apostle had absolved him and then besought them to confirm their Love towards him 2 C. 28. 10. In the next place I am accused of altering and perverting the Text. 〈◊〉 heavy charge which ought not to be passed over lightly The Accusation is that v. 4. I have put the Words thus Of my Spirit whereas the Translators leaving out of render the place thus My Spirit not Of my Spirit Ans. Since the Grammatical construction will bear it there is no reason of accusing me of perverting the Text. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be coupled with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put absolute and into a Parenthesis Upon this supposition then thus the Words may be laid In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and my Spirit or of my Spirit which is the same thing when ye are gathered together c. So that Mr. O. could not have any just pretense for his Accusation whatever becomes of my Interpretation of the Text. This perhaps he may call into Question and my purpose now is to vindicate it I cannot reconcile my self unto that Opinion which Couples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus more plainly in English When ye and my Spirit are gathered together Paul was now at Ephesus both Body and Spirit I can form no Idea of his Spirit assembling with the Corinthians at so great a distance True he tells 'em that he is present with 'em in Spirit but Corrects himself immediately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As though I were present So that the Sense is St. Paul was present with 'em in Heart and Affections studying their welfare wishing them well and praying that their Souls might be Saved and their Church Edified in Peace and Purity Or why not present among 'em by his Authority As we say the King is every where present in his Dominions by his Influence and Providence But that the Spirit of Paul should be gathered or assembled with the Corinthian Congregation is a too harsh and improper Expression at least in my Fancy and Opinion especially since so Commodious and agreeable Sense may be given of the Words Nor let any one suspect me to have advanced this Interpretation to serve a cause which stands in no need of it For if it shall still be thought that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be coupled then the latter Words must import the Apostles Authority as I formerly expounded it And least the Apostle should seem too assuming in thus insisting on his own ' Authority with great caution he adds With the Power of our Lord Jesus Christ. As if he had said my Authority but in Conjunction with and subordination to the Power of Christ. For so the Apostle was wont oftimes carefully to prevent mistakes left he should be thought to haveUsurpt his Power Thus he 2 Cor. 10. 8. speaking of his Authority adds Which the Lord hath given us c. And Chap. 2. 10. which comes nearer to our purpose when he had granted the Absolution of the Excommunicated Person I forgave it says he in the Person of Christ. Upon the whole matter thus much at least may be said of this Instance of Ecclesiastical Discipline that St. Paul directed and commanded it which is all I need to be concerned for For then it can be no president for a College of Presbyters much less for a particular Minister of one single Congregation to Excommunicate which was the thing I intended to Evince I proceed now to the Story of 〈◊〉 's Ordination briefly related 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. of which in the first place I delivered this as my own settled Opinion That Timothy underwent two Ordinations the one for Presbyter the other for 〈◊〉 or Supreme Ruler of the Church of 〈◊〉 One of my Reasons for this was because Paul himself seemed to me to have been twice Ordained once Act. 9. 15 〈◊〉 17. and again Chap. 13. the first unto the Ordinary Ministry of the Word the second unto the Apostle of the Gentiles Against this Mr. O. Argues 1. That Paul was more than an Ordinary Minister of the Word Gal. 1. 1. meaning before he received that Imposition of hands Act. 13. that is from the time of his Conversion Ans. He might as well say that Paul was an
expounded by the Scripture but surely not by the two places only which he has alledged all the rest being laid aside The Epistle then of Clement must be Expounded by the Whole Scripture and what Intimations of three Orders are any where therein to be found This has been done already and needs not be drawn in here again to lengthen and confound the Argument Only thus briefly to the two Passages adduced by Mr. O. Though St. Paul Philip. 1. 1. mentions Bishops and Deacons only and no third Superior Officer in that Church yet Chap. 2. 25. 〈◊〉 calls Epaphroditus by whom he sent this Epistle the Apostle of the Philippians and though 1 Tim. 3. ch He names Bishops and Deacons only and no third Officer yet as I hope has been sufficiently made out he had constituted Timothy Ruler of the Church of Ephesus and particularly of the Elders there So that there were at Philippi three Orders an Apostle Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons Likewise at Ephesus Timothy the Ruler of that Church and Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons and the same is to be believed of the Church of Corinth when Clement wrote to 'em if we will suffer our selves to be guided by Scripture and Reason 4. That Clement exhorted the Corinthians to be subject unto the Presbyters is certain But so did Ignatius require that the Churches should be subject to their Presbyters tho' at the same time he urged the Christians and specially the Presbyters themselves to be subject to the Bishop The Flock may be subject to the Presbyters and at the same time they and the Presbyters ought to be subject to the Bishop Again that the Presbyters governed the Church in common is not questioned but that they did so without a Bishop is no where expresly said Lastly that Clement expresly mentions no Chief Bishop at 〈◊〉 I own especially not by the name Bishop but still He seems to speak of an Order of Church-Officers Superior to and distinct from Presbyters Page the second commending the peaceable Behaviour of the Corinthians in time 〈◊〉 He writes that they had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subject to 〈◊〉 Rulers and giving convenient honour unto the Presbyters And again p. 〈◊〉 Let us worship the Lord Jesus Christ let us reverence our Governours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us honour our Presbyters One would think here is sufficient Intimation of an Order of Church Officers Superior unto Presbyters and distinct from them 5. Clement was himself Bishop or Supreme Ruler of the Church of God at Rome being as 't is thought the same Person that we read of Philip. 4. 3. Now 't is not at all likely that Clement a Person of unquestionable Piety and Integrity being a Prelatical Bishop himself at Rome should approve or countenance the Presbyterian Parity at 〈◊〉 and that those two Apostolical Churches should thus widely differ in their Form of Government 6. It may deserve our Observation what Clement writes towards the Conclusion of his Epistle p. 69. thus Whoever among you is Generous and Charitable let him resolve thus If the Sedition Contention and Schisms are risen on my account I 'll be gone where-ever ye will and whatever the People require that I 'll do only let the Flock of Christ and the Presbyters set over them live in Peace Methinks the Author in these Words plainly enough distinguishes between that Generous Person first spoken of and a considerable part of the Presbyters immediately after mentioned separately from him This Generous Person was it seems settled in some Post or Office by one Party of the 〈◊〉 or atleast continued in it against the Mind and Inclination of the Rest. From hence sprang the Quarrels and Schisms among ' em Now what Office could this be but that of the Prelatical Bishop He could not be a meer Presbyter for he 's plainly distinguished from them And besides 't is not to be imagined that one common Presbyter equal with the Rest should have been the occasion of such a dangerous Schism or that his Absence should immediately put an end to it as 't is here imply'd Nor will any one I believe say that He was a Deacon much less an Ordinary Believer He was then as I conceive the Prelate of that Church but not acceptable to one party of the 〈◊〉 and on this Occasion the Peace of the Church was disturbed Clement not intermeddling among 'em as to the Merits of the Cause advises this Generous Person out of Charity and for the Peace of the Church to abdicate and depart from his Office to the end some other succeeding with the Universal Consent of the Corinthians by this means a Period might be put unto their Divisions In further proof of this I offer unto Consideration what I long since wrote in my Clement upon the Margin but was not so happy as to refer to the Author whence I had taken that Note 'T is this That from the Passage of Clement's Epistle just before set down at length 〈◊〉 and others after him conjecture that Clement was named by Peter to be Bishop of Rome and the Apostles immediate Successor but refused it for a like Reason that he here exhorts the Generous Person at Corinth to lay down his Office Now 't was very proper for Clement to urge his own reason and example and especially since his Modesty and Condescension gained him afterward the Affections of that Church and at length advanced him unto the Bishoprick of Rome The like he hints unto this Generous Person as a Motive to him to resign in the next Period He says Clement who shall do thus shall procure to himself great Glory in the Lord and every place every Church will receive him The Passage in Epiphanius whereof I speak is in English as follows Peter and Paul were both the first Apostles and Bishops of Rome then Linus afterward Cletus and next him Clement Contemporary of Peter and Paul Nor let any one wonder that others before Clement received the Episcopacy from the Apostles seeing Clement was their Contemporary Whether He received Ordination to the Episcopacy and declined it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whilst they the Apostles Peter and Paul surviv'd for He says in one of his Epistles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I depart I am gone let the People of God abide in Peace designing this for others Good and advantage or whether c. It may perhaps be objected that Clement ascribes not the Corinthian Schisms to that one Generous Person only but to some misunderstandings between the People and the Presbyters some of the latter being not suffered to continue in the exercise of their Ministry any longer at Corinth So 't is intimated pag. 58. in these Words It would be no little Sin in us to cast off those Presbyters or Bishops who have discharged the Office of their Ministry 〈◊〉 and without blame for we see that they have removed some Presbyters whose Conversation was laudable and
one for Bishop another for Presbyter as our Translation and the Greek do but it hath only Kashishaa The Word in Chaldee and in Syriac signifies Presbyters From whence we are to conclude that in the Opinion of the Syriac Translators Bishops and Priests though two Words in the Greek are nevertheless but one and the same Species of Church-Officers and therefore express'd but by one Word in the Syriac Translation which properly signifies 〈◊〉 or Elders First Supposing all this true viz. that Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture denote one and the same kind of Church-Officer in the Judgment of the Syriac Translators who therefore described them by one Word only in their own Language Yet this hinders not but that there was another Order of 〈◊〉 Rulers Superiour to Bishops and Presbyters Thus much I take it has been abundantly proved already in the Tentamen Novum 〈◊〉 and Titus being such Church Governours Superior to the Bishops and Presbyters though not distinguish'd by any Special and appropriate Title So that if all Mr. O. has here said and his Deduction from it were true 't will do him no Service nor us any disadvantage in the present Cause But. are commonly invested with all those Powers which Inferiors have but Inferiors cannot pretend to all the Power that Superiors have 'T is no wonder therefore to me if Bishops are sometimes stil'd Presbyters since the Apostles themselves in Scripture and Bishops oftentimes in 〈◊〉 are so called Therefore Thirdly Mr. O. has not got the least advantage of us by starting this Criticism about the Syriac Translation But rather has lost ground so far as these Translator's Authority will go For because he thought it a good Argument on his side that the Syriac Translators of the New Testament as He imagined used not two Words for Bishop and Presbyter but one only sc. Kashishaa it follows that because 't is found to the contrary that they used several other Words none of which are employ'd to express Presbyter by this ought to be taken as a good proof on our side that even in the New Testament there is a distinction between the Order of a Bishop and that of a Presbyter if Mr. O's own way of reasoning has any force in it Finally if the Syriac Version be so very Ancient as Mr. O. thinks one might believe Ignatius to have had an hand in the Translation For he was a Bishop of Syria And who then can imagine the Translators to have so-much as Dream'd of the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters CHAP. V. Concerning the Church-Government in the North-West parts of Scotland THere is an Argument for the Government of Churches and Ordination by Presbyters drawn from the Scots who being converted to Christianity about the Year 200. as is thought upon the Authority of Tertullian had no Bishops among them but were Ruled by meer Presbyters only and that for 〈◊〉 Centuries after The Dissenters argument grounded on this Tradition is more at large thus according as it is urged by Mr. Baxter their Oracle as I find in the History called an Account of Church-Government c. by My late Lord Bishop of Worcester First Mr. Baxter tells us of a sort of Men called Culdees that first guided the Affairs of Religion in Scotland long before the coming of Palladius and yet were not Bishops but Monks and Presbyters Secondly That these Culdees chose some few among themselves to be as Governours to the Rest whom Writers called Scotorum Episcopos Bishops of the Scots Thirdly That these New found Bishops of the Scots had only the Name of Bishops about which he Mr. Baxter will not contend with the Episcopal Party By the way nor will I contend about the Name Bishop but Mr. Baxter acknowledges that they were as 〈◊〉 to the Rest. And here is the thing which is more than the Name only of Bishops Fourthly That afterwards 〈◊〉 began a Higher sort of Bishops but the Culdees still kept up the greatest part against him Fifthly That Columbanus his Monastery in the Isle of Hy restored the Culdees strength and the Monks out of that Island were the most prevailing Clergy of Scotland who had no proper Episcopal Ordination but bare Election and Ordination of Presbyters This piece of History is just 〈◊〉 all over one would guess 't was Eutychius his Mark who first converted these Northern Britains and setled the Government like unto that at 〈◊〉 But against all this I have in the first place to ask who in good earnest converted these Northern Britains Mr. O. thinks it was the Southern Britains I will take him at his Word and then demand whether it be not most reasonable to believe that the Northern Britains did with the Faith receive the same Church-Government as the Southern had who converted'em And that the Southern Britains has Bishops among them from the beginning is out of doubt and confess'd by the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches met at the 〈◊〉 October the 12th 1658. In the Preface of their Declaration that its true in respect of the Publick and open Profession of Presbytery or 〈◊〉 this Nation had been a stranger to each way it is possible ever since it had been Christian i. e. till about 1640. It is without all doubt to me that the Southern Britains very early received the Christian Faith and perhaps in the Apostle's Days and by St. Paul too as My 〈◊〉 Lord of Worcester has made very probable both from the Testimony of many Fathers and some considerable Conjectures of 〈◊〉 own But the Question is whether the Inhabitants of the North and North-West parts of Britain beyond Edenburgh received the Faith before Columbanus settled in the Island of Hy or Jona Our 〈◊〉 will have it that these North People became Christians at least about the Year of Christ 200. and from that time until 〈◊〉 came among them were governed by Monks and Culdees who were Presbyters only This Opinion is grounded chiefly on a known Testimony out of 〈◊〉 who writes that the Faith of Christ had then 〈◊〉 unto 〈◊〉 loca Romanis 〈◊〉 and these places must needsbe the North-West parts of 〈◊〉 beyond Edenburgh which the Romans had 〈◊〉 subdued Now Tertullian flourished about the end of the second Century or beginning of the Third Ans. This Passage of 〈◊〉 reaches not the point it can't be hence deduced what was the Government of that Church supposing those Northern parts were thus soon converted 〈◊〉 might have been 〈◊〉 up there for any thing we know or find proved And it is likely it was so if as Mr. O. 〈◊〉 they received Christianity from the Southern 〈◊〉 as I observed before But let us look more narrowly into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that some parts belonging to the 〈◊〉 were then become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who had not yet submitted their 〈◊〉 unto the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who 〈◊〉 were is the Question Some think they were the Britains next beyond the Picts Wall who were not Conquered by the Romans
and besides were small and inconsiderable Conversions no Church being formed or established among them For so 〈◊〉 in the place cited mentions many other Countries where happly some few scattered Christians lived though no Church was regularly established Now though this is sufficient to convince me that the People of the remote North and North-West of Scotland now so called beyond Edenburgh were not meant by 〈◊〉 yet foreseeing it will not satisfie others whose Interest and Cause will not suffer them easily to be perswaded I will therefore take the Liberty to offer my own Thoughts unto the Readers Consideration My Conjecture then is that the Loca Britannorum Romanis inaccessa referred unto by 〈◊〉 were no other than Ireland Ptolomy reckons the Islands of the World thus First Taprobane the Greatest The next was GREAT Britain otherwise 〈◊〉 Albion and the Third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another Island of the Britains called Ireland And Pliny says Albion was named Britany yet all the Neighbouring Island were called Britannies and that Ireland of Old time was inhabited by Britains Aristotle or whoever was the Author of that Book de mundo Witnesses that there were in the Ocean two the greatest Islands in the World called 〈◊〉 ' ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Albion and Ireland Thus much I have gathered from Mr. Cambden I shall add one of my own Collection from Dionysius de situ Orbis who speaking of our Western Ocean says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who then can doubt but that Ireland was meant by 〈◊〉 's Britannorum loca as well as any other places of the Britains since 't is well known the Romans never carried their Arms nor extended their Conquests so far as unto that Island although they were not ignorant of the place be sure in Tertullian's Days no nor in Augustus's time when Dionysius the African wrote 〈◊〉 himself in the same Period adds and Multarum Insularum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Islands unknown to us where the Gospel had got footing But least the unwary Reader should think these very Words overthrow my Opinion and that the Island Ireland being unknown to 〈◊〉 cannot be meant by the Loca 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inaccessa it must be noted that by 〈◊〉 he intends such Islands with whom they had no Commerce in Ordinary nor an exact account of 〈◊〉 that they were wholly ignorant of them cannot be for then 〈◊〉 must talk at Random and Nonsense How could He say that Christianity was propagated in these Islands if they were altogether 〈◊〉 There is a passage in Archbishop 〈◊〉 I must not 〈◊〉 over Neither did Celestine employ less care about freeing the Britains from the Pelagian Heresies a Bishop being Ordained 〈◊〉 the Scots while be studies to preserve the Roman Island Catholick 〈◊〉 also made the Barbarous Island Christian the former whereof was Great-Britain the latter Ireland The forecited Words are 〈◊〉 's which Vitus Basinstochius thus expounds and thereby illustrates Tertullian When Prosper said Britannies doubtless 〈◊〉 called the Roman Island Britain and the other Island called Barbarous he understood to be Ireland whither the Power of the Roman 〈◊〉 't is believed never came It will be Objected hence that therefore because the Pope is here said to have sent a Bishop 〈◊〉 is meant and by him made Ireland Christian Ireland embraced not the Faith till that time 〈◊〉 about 430. by consequence 〈◊〉 is not to be understood of Ireland But I reply First That Prosper and 〈◊〉 must be supposed to speak a 〈◊〉 de Rome as believing none were good Christians but who depended on the Pope Besides Ireland was Christian long before this as the story of 〈◊〉 proves But Secondly It may with Reason 〈◊〉 supposed that a great part of Ireland was yet unconverted Or Thirdly The Scots a Foreign People 〈◊〉 and Barbarous had more 〈◊〉 invaded and Conquered them and withal very much impaired the Christian Religion as the 〈◊〉 once did here in England nevertheless that about the Year 430. the Christian Religion by the Preaching of 〈◊〉 or rather St. Patrick was restored again If it be demanded of me how I prove that Ireland became Christian before 〈◊〉 I reply 't is proved by the same 〈◊〉 others would prove that the North and North West of the now Scotland was so early converted that is by 〈◊〉 's Testimony and which 〈◊〉 the must likely conjecture must now be left to the Reader The summ is if 〈◊〉 may as well speak of Ireland as of any other place here is then no proof of so early a Conversion in the utmost North of Great Britain But let us hear what Mr. O. has advanc'd in this Controversy For indeed my business is with him He begins then and Acquaints us The Histories of Scotland tell 〈◊〉 their Churches were Governed by 〈◊〉 without Bishops for above 200 Years and therefore had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 In confirmation hereof Mr. O. cites Hector 〈◊〉 John Major and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and indeed these are the best and the most Ancient and only Witnesses that can be produced in that Cause except the invisible 〈◊〉 who at best was but in the Eleventh Century But these were the most Errand 〈◊〉 of Legends as ever appeared in publick having no Author no Records before them to support what they affirm concerning their Country and its affairs Thus much my Lord of St. 〈◊〉 in his Historical Account has objected against these and other such Fabulous Historians And Mr. O. who has read this Learned Bishop ought not to have urged these 〈◊〉 unless 〈◊〉 had taken off the Bishops Exceptions against them True he tells us Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Approbation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 E. 〈◊〉 p. 〈◊〉 799. 800. But when I consult Archbishop 〈◊〉 I find him indeed citing these Authors page 800. but not no not 〈◊〉 Himself with Approbation unless his very citing them must 〈◊〉 taken as an Approbation of them which I must 〈◊〉 Mr. O. is his 〈◊〉 For the said Archbishop in his Preface to that Book 〈◊〉 the Reader would object against him the Obscurity and little Credit of many of his Authors ingenuously Confesses that he had gathered together a 〈◊〉 of all manner of Authors good and bad new and old to the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Historian might from thence pick what seemed to his purpose and probable But that otherwise he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not so void of sense 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Monmouth or Hector Boethius or any other of the lower Form as 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 thing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence it follows that Archbishop 〈◊〉 cites them not with Approbation especially not 〈◊〉 and therefore not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is the vir gregis the 〈◊〉 and Leader in all the Romantick Stories of the Antiquity of the Scotch Nation and Church It is to be observed Hector Boethius the last of the three takes upon him to mend the former Fordon and Major saying what Mr. O. leaves out Palladius was the first
which properly belongs to us here is to prove it to have been the Principle and Practice of the Church in the beginning of the Fourth Century when the Alexandrian and Nicene Synods were Assembled which we think also is hitherto made good But Blondel goes on Ischyras was deposed by the Alexandrian Bishops whence it appears he was taken for a Presbyter not a meer Laic For else 't is absurd to affirm he was deposed A Man cannot be said to be knock'd down except he stood on his Feet before Ans. This is what we utterly deny and is indeed a Meer quirk no better than fooling Ischyras and many others were not properly deposed but only declared no Presbyters as being Ordained by a Presbyter which may reasonably be gathered from the Expressions used in the foresaid Synodical Epistles concerning such as Colluthus had Ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ischyras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denote no more And therefore when the Synod of Jerusalem complained how the Eusebians caused Ischyras to be called Bishop they aggravated the Insolence in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas he was not so much as a Presbyter viz. at that very time that 's to say When 〈◊〉 was alive and in some Credit and when the Eusebians gave him out for a Bishop before the Alexandrian Synod was assembled or had declared him a Laic even then he was not so much as a Presbyter So that he was a meer Laic in the Nature of the thing and before the Alexandrian Fathers had so pronounced him Nor do I see any impropriety in saying Ischyras tho' no Presbyter was deposed For though he was really no Presbyter as being Ordained by a Presbyter only yet he took upon him the Office and Title of Presbyter supported and upheld himself by Stilts by Confidence and Hypocrisy He was believed a Presbyter by many and by many countenanced and kept up as such Now though a Man lying prostrate on the floor can't be Knock'd down qui jacet in terrâ non habet unde cadat yet he who stands on Crutches or is held up by others 't is not absurd to say He may be Knock'd down which is sufficient to shew the Weakness of Blondel's fancy And the false Colours put on this Argument But Blundel gives it yet a siner Turn thus It was usual in that Age says he to reduce real Bishops and Presbyters transgressing the Canons of the Church ad Laicam Communionem and yet it cannot be deny'd but they had been real Bishops Ans. This is very true But is just such another piece of Sophistry as before and reaches not the Merits of the Cause For 1. this will not evince that ever 〈◊〉 was a Presbyter though some real Presbyters for Crimes proved upon them were allowed only Lay-Communion He has not 〈◊〉 us that they were declared meer Laics They were only suspended from performing the Office of Presbyters and admitted to Lay-Communion their Character still as I may say lying dormant in them If any such Instance were to be found it can't thence be gathered that Ischyras also was so dealt with 'T is absurd to argue from one or a few particular Instances unto all others or to any other single Case especially which differs from them For 't is one thing to misdemean ones self in an Office another to counterfeit it The former is deprived from performing what he is orherwise rightly qualify'd for the latter is not what he pretends to be The instance of the former kind is of a pure Ecclesiastical Punishment whereas the latter labours under a defect and Error of the first Concoction which in the Nature of the thing annuls all his following Ministerial Acts he having never received the Power which he pretends to Though therefore a Real Presbyter is for his misbehaviour sometimes condemn'd to Lay-Communion yet the suspension taken of as he once was so he again becomes a real Presbyter to all intents and purposes 'T is no good Consequence hence drawn that a Counterfeit Presbyter such was Ischyras who is declared a meer Laic must needs have been a Presbyter Neither will it follow that he who has usurp'd the Seat of a Presbyter from whence he is thrust down and deposed was ever a real Presbyter For a Man may well enough be said to be deposed from an Office which he usurps and discharges for a while but never had a Right and Title to A Real King though deposed was once a real King that 's undeniable but one that personates and is called a King and Acts all the parts of the Royal Character for a time must be acknowledged never to have been a real King 'T was Ischyras his Case He Acted the part of a Presbyter and was afterwards Kick'd off the Stage shall it hence be concluded He was once a real Presbyter Under Blondel's favour I think not But Let us see now what Mr. O. who has a Knack at improving Arguments 〈◊〉 offered about the Case of Ischyras He acknowledges Colluthus was but a pretended Bishop and therefore was Commanded by the Alexandrian Council to be a Presbyter I am of this Mind and 't is all I demand should be grantedme The Reader of himself will discern hereby that he has given up the Whole Cause But perhaps Mr. O. means that Colluthus pretending to be a Bishop though he was not one and under that false Colour to Ordain therefore not his Power of Ordaining as a Presbyter was called in Question but his Dissimulation in taking upon him to be what he was not was condemned and so he was publickly declared to be a Presbyter that is a pretended Bishop only Ans. But I ask then why was Ischyras laid aside as a meer Laic Surely not because his Ordainer falsly assumed the Character of Bishop which belonged not to him But then say I is it not hard my Ordainers Dissimulation supposing him otherwise to have the Power should annul my Orders But Colluthus his Ordinations were vacated not because he pretended to be a Bishop and was not but because he was a Presbyter without Power to Ordain Well! But Mr. O. tells us Ischyras's Ordination was declared void as being not acknowledged by the Authors Colluthus belike not owning he had Ordained Ischyras So that it not appearing 't was taken for granted He was never Ordained and so He became a Laic no Presbyter not because he was Ordained by a Presbyter but for want of any Ordination that appeared The meaning of all which as I apprehend is that the instance makes nothing against Ordination by Presbyters seeing here was no Ordination at all Ischyras's Ordainers not owning that they had imposed hands on him For answer hereunto I referr the Reader to what is above replyed unto something of this kind The sum whereof is that Ischyras was either really Ordained by Colluthus the Presbyter or at least by his Judges taken for such which is the same thing As for Dr. Field's Argument