niiis applies to the Northern Parts of Adrians Wall.
For this Caufc, fays he, Petrus Cluniacenfn calls the
Scots the more ancient Chriftians. Cent.-^.c.'^. & 2. c.2.
3. If the Northern Brhairis wQve converted by Men
from Rome, how come they to keep Eafter, not after
the Romany but Eaftern Manner ? When they were
urg'd to conform to the Roniljh Modes, they pleaded
the Cuftom of the Afiatich ; from whom they had re-
ceived the Chriftian Religion.
When the .S'^xo-i^ow^/^Bilhopsimpos'd Conformity
in this Particular, the Scots oppos'd them : And Bi-
jfhop Colman chofe rather to leave his Charge than com-
ply, about 66^.
The Britains and PiBs were as rigid Non-confor-
mifts as he in this Point ; would not fubmit to Ro7ney
becaufe they had received their Religion from AJia^
and not from Italy.
Dagamusy their Bifhop, refus'd all Communion with
thQ Rom a}2 Bifhops, and would not fo much as eat
with them in the fame Houfe. Bede 2. 4.
Bede himfelf owns. That Palladius was the firfl:
Scots Bifhop, tho they were Chriftians before. Palla-
dius ad Scotos in Chrifimn Credentes — — [riwus mititur
Epifcopus. lib. I. c. 13.
Obj. In Palladius's time Britain had fuch Bifhops
as were in all other Parts of the Roman Empire. Bede.
t Anfu.
^8 An Abridgment of
Anfw. I. Many of the Brit/fi and Scots Bifhops
were ordain'd only by one Bifhop according to Bede
3. 21. Whereas in other Parts of the Empire they
\^ere ordain'd by three Bifhops, Con. Nic. can. 4.
2. 'Tis not unlikely, but that Britain being a Pro-
vince of the Roman ErHprey its Church Government
might be in fome Degree modell'd, as in other Parts
of the Empire, in imitation of the Pagan Modes.
That the Hierarchy in the Churches of that Em-
pire had its Pattern from the Heathen, will appear
from the following Obfervations.
1. The Heathen had their {Sacer dotes) their Priefls,
and over 'em their Chief Priefts, whofe Office was to
ordain and govern. Jul Ep. ad Arfac. in Soz.om. V.
1 5. In every Province one Chief Prieft had the fu-
preme Power, to whom the inferior Orders were
fiibjed.
2. Thb Mafter of the Sentences confeHes, that the
diftindion of Bifhops, Metropolitans, Archbifliops,
was borrowed from the Gentiles. — a Genttbus in-
t/odu^a, videtur^ qui fuos Flamines — Lib. 4. difi. 2 5. M.
3. Ponticus VnunnifU is of the fame Opinion, and
tells us, that there were in Britain before the Planta-
tion of Chriftianity, 28 Flamensy and 3 Archflamens.
In the room of the Flamens were fet up Bifhops, and
in the room o^ th^ Archflamens Archbifhops ; the Seat
of the Archflamens were London^ Torky and Caerleon upon
Vsk j to thefe 3 Metropolitans were fubjed 28 ^i -
Jliops. Hift. Brit. lib. 4. p. 3 2.
4. Thus Cafar fpeaking concerning the Govern-
ment of the antient Druids of France , fays, that
they raanag'd all the Pagan Devotions under the Con-
dud of one chief Prefident, whofe Authority was fu-
preme, and that this Difcipline was found in Britain —
Drudtbus praefl nnus-^ de bell. Gal. I. 6.
Upon the whole.
The North of Britain feems to be converted by
the Scots. What was done by Aidanus and others,
in
Mr. J. OwQns Tlea. 79
in converting the North-Saxons, isy I think, own'd by
all Hiftorians that treat of that Subjed.
After the Scots became Chriftians their Church-
Government was managed by Presbyters, call'd Ciil'-
deesy or Monksy who according to their Hiftorians,
govern d till Palladius was fent by Pope Celefline Zr
gainft the Pelagian Hercfiey at which time he eftablifh'd
Bifhops in Scotland^ which was many Years after the
publick reception of Chriftianity in that Kingdom.
And according to Buchanan and Camhden they had
no Diocefans till the time of Malcolm. III. A.D. 1070.
'twas yet much longer before they had any Archbi-
fhops ; fo that the Archbilhop of York in the 1 2th
Age obtained of the Pope that he Ihould be their Me-
tropolitan, but the Scots Bifhops oppofing it, the
Pope freed them from that pretended Jurifdidion.
Vid. Collier in Scot,
II. I now proceed to give an Inftancc of a Presby-
ter's Ordaining in Scotland^ viz.
Segenius a Presbyter and Abbot of the Monaftery
of Hy, did with other Presbyters ordain Aidan, and
his Succeflbr Finan, Bede Htfl, 5. 5.
Bu T 'tis faid by our Adverfaries that there was al-
ways one Bifhop in Hy, according to the Ulfler Annals y
Sec. I anfwer,
I . No Author near that time fays chat there was
a Bifhop conftantly Rcfident at Hy. As to the An-
nals of Uljier, they are juftly accounted Apocryphal,
not being attefted by any Author of that Age.
1. If there was a Bi/iop at Hy, he was fubjed
to the Abbot-Presbyter, who was the only Church
Governor of that Ifland and the Provinces about.
The Government was undoubtedly in the Abbot's
Hands, and Ordination is an Ad of Government.
Habere folet ifla Jnfula reBorem Semper Ahhatem Preshy"
mum. Bed. 3. 4.
The Abbots or Presbyters of Hy govern*d and or-
dain'd, and no certain Inftance was yet produc'd of
Ordination by Bidiops in that Diftrid. 3.
8o An Ahidgmeni oj
5. Whhrfas 'tis iirg'd there was a fecond Bi/Jhop at
^y, when y^/^/z;2 was ordain'd ,- there's no manner
of proof for it, nor can fuch a Man be produc'd out
of Beds. It does not appear that he was ordain'd
B:ihop. Bede calls him a Prieilj or i^ he was, how will
it appear he was ordain'd by the Bifhop of H).
Bed. 3.8,
Therefore, faith the Learned Hiftorian, Ordained
perhaps by the Bifbop of Hy. He durft not fay pofitive-
ly it was fo, for he knew he could not prove it> there-
fore puts it off with 2. perhaps —
XI. In Ireland the Church was govern'd without
Diocefans for a long time. Archbifhop Ujher Oiews
out of Nenmusy that St. Patrick the Apoflle of Ireland^
who liv'd in the Vth Century, founded here 365
Churches, and as many Bijhops ; by which 'tis evi-
dent that I/iJh Bifhops were no other than Parochial
Minifters. Tho' Lanfranc and Bernard diflike the
Pradice of having fo many BifhopSi yet produce no
Initance of the Irijh being fubjed to Diocefan Rulers.
viz. Jamefons FundamentaPs of the Hierarchy examind.
Sedion 7.
XII. The antient WaUenfes had their Minifters
ordain'd by Presbyters without Bifhops. The
Learned Father Patd fays, they had Paftors of their
own 400 Years before the Reformation. Hifh. of the
C. of Trent, p. 3^4.
These JValdenfesy who liv'd about the AIps^ were
thtFathers and famous Predeceifors of the Proteflants ;
the firfl VVitnelfes againfc Antichrift, and are to this
Day (as a certain Great Bifhop calls 'em) the piirefl
Remains oj Primitive ChnfUanity. Per. Hi ft of IVald,
I. I. c. 13. p. 62.
VVheiIias \is faid, thofc in Moravia and Auftria
had Bifliops.
Thly were only titular or fenior Presbyters, as the
Popifh Writers obferve : But more of this under the
next Obje(^ion.
It
Mr. J. Owen'j- Tlea. 8 1
It appears even from Rei nevus's Account of 'cm, that
Presbyters and Bifhops were the fame, for his elder
and younger Son ordain'd, who were but Presbyters.
'Tom. 4. part 2. p. 758. He makes this their great
Crime, quod nerno-i major Jit altero in Ecdejia^ That they
had no fuperior Bifhop in the Church.
The Fratres Bohemt had their Succeilion of Minf-
fters from them. For they fent Michael Zambergius
and two more for Ordination to the poor IValdenfesy
who never had a Bifhop among em but in Title
only.
But the AfTertors of Prelacy fay out of Comem'm,
who writ their Hiftory, that they had Bifhops, and
were not rightly fatisfied about Ordination. I
anfwer,
I. Comenius affirms Bifhop and Presbyter to be the
fame, and the late Redor of Bury owns it ; fays he.
It muft: be confefl that Comenius faith Bifhop and Prcf-
byter are one. His ^to. Anfw-. 104.
The Bohemians looked on Bifhops and Presbyters
as the fame Order of Miniflers. This is evident
from their Book of Difcipline, which does not make
the Bifhop fuperiour to Presbyters, and alfo from
the Teftimony of their Adverfaries.
^neas Sylvius, fpeaking of the Huffttesy faith, that
one of their damnable Pofitions, is that there was no
Superiority among Miniflers. Hupts pefiifira j'aBicnis
dogmata funt — Inter Sacerdotes nuUu?n difcrimen. Hift.
In the fame Colledion of Writers concerning the
Bohemian Affairs, P/V(?/o7;z/>/^«j, fpeaking of the Huffites^
delivers this as one of their Dogmata, or Opinions,
"That there was no different Order of Alinifters. Sucerdotiim
nullum habere in gradu. — T'huan compares *em with
the Englifh Nonconformifts. Hifi.part i. /. 5.
3. Their cafling Lots was a fign they were not:
wholly fatisfied ; and no wonder, iince they were but
newly rfeparated from the ROTnilh Church, and cou'd
G not
8 7 An Ahrid^eni of
not be fiippos*d to throw off all its Errors at once :
But their fending to the Waldenfesy and fubmitting
to their Presbyterial Ordination determined 'em, and
anfwers the Obje(5lion.
Befides, when LutJjer began to appear, there was a
great Harmony between him and thefe Bohemians^
both in DoBrine and DifcifUne. J. a Lafcoy a noble
Polander, and A. Comeniusy in their Account ot em,
tell us they had Superintendants, and particular and
general Synods, but fay nothing of Diocefan Bifhops.
XIII. The Lollcirdsy or Wicklifs Followers in Eng"
/^«ij held and pradis'd Ordination by meer Presbyters,
not for want of Bifhops, but from this Principle, that
all Minifters of Chrift have e^iial Power, Wiilfingh,
Htft. ad A. D. 138P. f. 3 3P, 340.
But they are charg'd with a great many Errors, as
that no Day is Holy, no, not the Lord's Day, as that
the Order of Presbyters was no ways approved of by
God. If'alf. p. ^66.Gips. 107.
Atif. The Charge is falfe, for their Ordaining PreJ-^
lyters by Presl^yters is affirmed by IValJingham 2iS a Mat-
ter of Fad, p. 339. 340. uid. Tutamen Evang. 32, 42.
Befides, that they own'd the Chriftian Sabbath is
evident.
For ttie Cardinals and Bifhops fent by Lewis XII.
to inquire into their Dodrine and Manners give *eni
this Teflimony, that they baptiz'd their Children re-
ligioufly , obferved the Lord's Day, preached the
Word. But they had no Images or Ornaments of
the Mafsin their Churches. Molin.de Mon. Franc ^ 155.
The Hiflorian complains how all parts of England
were full of thofe People, and the Prelates knew it,
but none were found to perfecute 'em but the Bifliop
of Norwich. Walfingh,
XIV. In the Ifland T'aprobaney now Ceylony which
is in the Indian Sea, there was a Chriftian Church
govern'd by a Presbyter and his Deacon without a
Superior Bifhop.
This
Mr. ]. Owen's Tlca. 55
This iriand is a Province big enough for a Bifhop,
yet had none in Jrifiin the Emperor's time about
Jrtn. Do7n. 520. Lloyds reckoned by Collier among the
befl Lexicographers y makes this Ifland 2000 Miles in
Compafs, Heylin about 800. If the prefent Ceylon be
lefs than the 'Taprohane of the Anticnts, 'tis no won-
der ; fince the Menders afliire us, that the Sea has o-
verflown a great part of it, and I think this Obfer-
vation will reconcile Ptolemy and Bochan in their
different Accounts of it.
Obj. There is a Tradition that Philip the Evange-
lift preach'd the Gofpel there.
Atifw. Be it fo, all that can be collecled from it is,
that here is a Church /ettfd without Bifhops.
Well then, it appears by this Paffage that Biftops
were not thought elfential to Churches ; no, not m
the fixth Age. Legiinjignem relationem Cofma Monachi.
de T'aprohana. L. Holflen. de Min. Conf.p, 3^.
The Fathers in the Second Council of Carthage^
Anno Dom. 428. did obferve, that till that time fome
Dioc^fes never had any Bifhops at all, and thereupon
decreed they Hiou'd have none for the future ; a plain
Indication that the Chriliians then did not look up-
on the Government of the Church by Bifhops to be
jure Di'vino. Placet ut Diocefes qufi nunqunm Epifcopos
acceperunty non habeam. Con. Cartb. 2. can, 5. Car an. ^
Labbe.
G % chap:
84 -^^ Ahndgment oj
Chap. XL
Obj. Ordination hy Vreshyters condemned by the
Canons. Anfw. By thofe Canons which aggran"
dize BiJhopSy Epifcopal Ordinations are made
"void. Arguments again fl the uninterrupted Sue-
cejjion of Bifhops from the Pope and Apojlles.
The ill Confequence offuch an AJfertion confidered,
Ifchyrus, CoUuthus, and Jerom, vindicated.
T..TERE 1*11 confider Tome Objedions made againft
^ ^ the Ordination we plead for.
1. Ohj. Ordination by Presbyters without Billiops
is condemn'd by the old Canons.
Anf. I. The antient Canons are not the eftablifh'd
Rule of Government among us. In that Refped they
are even difown'd by the Church.
2. By them, many things are refer'd to the Bifhops,
meetly to fupport their Grandeur, as the confecra-
ting of Churches, the ereding of Alt.irs, the ma-
•Icing of Chryfm, the reconciling of Penitents, the
vailing of Nuns. This is acknowledged by the Coun-
cil of Hifpalis. Let the Preshyiers know that the Power
of Ordaining is forbiduen \m hy the Apofiolical See, by vir^
iue of Novel Ecdejiajlical Conflitutions. C. Hifp. c Can. •;.
For the fame Reafon the Country Bifhops were re-
flrain a from Ordaining in the Council of Antioch.
Can. 10. Ann. Dom. 344.
And upon this Account 'twas decreed in the Coun-
cil of Sardisy Ann^ Dom> 347. That jio Village or
leffer Town mufl have a Bifliop, - lefl the Name
fhou'd grow contemptible. Ne vikfcat^ forfooth, No-
men Epifcopi.
3. Epifcopal Ordinations, as now manag'd, will
prove Ni;llities by the old Canons. Thofe call'd the
A-
Mr. J. Owen'i Tka. 85
Apoftles, which are confirmed by the Vlth General
Councilor Conflantinopky do dcpofe all Bifhops that
are chofen by the Civil Magiftrate. Can, 29-
This Canon is reviv'd by the 2d Council of Nice,
Can- 3. which the Greeks call the Vllth General Coun-
ciL
Now, all our Engli/h Bifhops are chofen by the
Magiftrate, the Writ of Conge / Eflier to the Dean
and Chapter is only Matter of Form, and they can't
rejed the Perfon recommended by the Crown.
Canon 6. 80. forbids Bifhops to intermeddle with
fccular Affairs, on pain of Depofition,
The Church of England docs not obferve the Ca-
nons of the firft General Councils, which Archbifhop
Laud wou'd have us believe are the Meafures of her
Reformation next the Scripture.
The Council of Nice requires the Ordination of
a Biihop to be by all the Bifhops of the Province, at
leaft by three, with the Confent of the abjent Bi]]>cps ex*
pref/d in Writing. Can. 4. A Rule not obferv'd by the
Engliih Bifhops that ever I heard of.
No more are the Canons of the great Council of
Chakedon obferv'd. where Can. 3. 7. forbids Miniftcrs to
take Farms,or meddling with Secular and Military Af-
fairs, or receiving Secular Honours.
Cant. 10. d^pofes all obftinate Pluralifts, and if du-
ly executed would bear hard upon thofe that heap
Pelion upon Offa, as if they wou'd mount to Heaven
from the Pinnacle of Eccleliaftical Promotions.
Thefe Canons are only produc'd ad hominem, to
fhew how unreafonable 'tis to urge 'em againfl Ordi-
nations by Presb3;^ters, when they may be equally
urg'd againft Epifcopal Ordinations. If then it be a
Crime not to obferve the Canons, let 'em who are
without any Canonical Guilt caft the firil Stone.
11. Ohj. 'Tis faid, our Ordinations are not by fuch
Diocefans as have their uninterrupted Succeffion
down from the Apoftles.
G 3 Mr
86 '^An AhndgYmnt of
Afifu:- I. This is the Argument of the Papifis a-
gainft the Hrfl Reformer s, whofe Ordinations were
denied, becaufe they wanted this pretended Succef-
fion. 'Tis urg'd by Bellarmine, G/etZser, ParfvnSy Sta^
fletOHy ArmuXi Ti^rrian the Jefuic who writ a Book
againfi: Proteflant Ordination,
2. This great Argument of the Succeflion is refu-
ted by our Proteflant Writers, efpecially by Sadeel^
|vho after he has challenged *em to produce a Scrip-
ture for it, proves that the ordinary Succeflion of
Minifters may be interrupted by Scripture Examples.
As when the Pritilhood was taken away from the
Houfe of £//, to whom a Promife of perpetual Sue-
cefliOn was made, i Sam. 2. 50.
Under the Kings of Ifraely God rais'd up Elijah
to preach up Repentance to *em, tho he was not of
the Sacerdotal Race.
Nay further, Chrill himfelf, in the Reformation
of the Church, chofe Apoftks, not from the Priefts,
but from other Families, Dj legiu 'uoc. Mm, f, 545,
If ever a Succeifion were neceflary to the Being
of a Church, it muil: be in the Jewifh Priefthood
which was intaifd upon one Family ; but that
Church remain'd a true Church, tho' the regular Suc-
ceflion was deflroy'd, Inftances of fuch«are given by
Jofephus» Antiq. i^-Cap. 2. Holy Bi'adford thtMzx'^
tyr, Dr. Fulk, Dr. Field, Dr. TVioite and others, fpeak
to the fame effed:, Vid, Plea-
Mr. Perkins fpeaks of a threefold Succeflion,
Firft of Perfons, and Dodrines in the Primitive
Church.
The next of Perfons alone> among Infidels and
Hereticks.
The third of Dodrine alone ; and thus our Mi-
ttifters fucceed the Apoftles. For this muft be remem-
ber'd. That the Povoer of the Keys, and that of Order
and Jurifdidion is annexed in the New Teftament
to Doctrine. Vd- 2./. 171. 3. If
Mr. ]. Owen's Tlca. 87
5. If this Hypothecs be true, there can be no true
Minifters in the Church of England^ (ince the Chain
of SucceiTion has been frequently broken, and one
Nullity makes a breach in the whole Chain.
All our Diocefan Bifhops as fuch, derive their Suc-
cefTion from the Pope of Rome : Now \i we can find
any interruption in the Succeffion of Bifhops there,
it nullifies all the Adminiftrations of thofe who de-
pend upon it.
If the Pope (Chrift's pretended Vicar) proves to
be the Antichrift j if many Pofes were Hereticks^ 5b-
domiteSi Idolaters, Cenjurers, lVhore7mngcrs, Murderers^
as fome of their own Authors affirm ; if there were
two or three Popes at a time ; What then becomes
of the pretended Line of Siicceffion ? Thefe Things
are Matter of Fad^ and if none of em interrupt the
Succeffion, what can ?
Ciirift had his Minifters in the Church, but not
by Virtue of this Succeffion that fome are fo fond of.
4. This Principle of lineal Succeffion from Romey
deftroys all Churches in the World : for there's no
Church this Day can produce fuch a Succeffion, as
hath met with no Canonical Interruption.
The Greeky Latin^ and African Churches bid fair-
eft for it, and all of 'em pretend to derive their Suc-
ceffion from St, Peter.
Thus the mofl confiderable part of the Gentile
World that's Chriil:ianiz'd, wou'd be reputed the
Offspring of the Chief Apoftle, as they term him.
It feems St. Paul, the Great Apoftle of the Gen-
tiles, either left noSuccefibr behind him, or no body
knows what's become of him.
Petevy the Apoftle of the Je-jjs, mufl: be the univer-
fal Head of all the Gentile Churches, and Paul the
Apoftle of the Gentiles, has left no body, it feems,
neither Jew nor Gentile, to derive their claim from
him. Thus poor Paul and the other Apoftles mufl
be written Childlefs, or be the Progenitocs of an Off-
G 4 ^ fpring
88 An Ahndgment of
fpriiig that's long ago extin(5t, or To very obfcure that
their Names are written in the Diift.
But the Unhappinefs of it, is rhe Greeks Latin and
Ajnca7i Churches, who pretend to be the three Patri-
archal Succeflbrs can't agree about the Inheritance.
The Pofe^ who reckons himfelf the eldeft Brother,
claims to himfelf the whole, and condemns the other
two as fpurious. Thus Bellarmine fpeaking of the
Greek Church, fays, that fhe has no Succeffion ; and
that there has been no SuccefTion in Amiochy Alexan-
dria and Jerufalem, fince thofe Places fell into the
Hands of the Perftans and Saracens ; and if ever there
was any, the fame was very obfcure. De Not* Eccl.
cap. 8.
On the other hand, the Greeks condemn the Roman
Succeffion, and, according. to Bellarmine, were the firft
who heartily oppos'd the Primacy of Rome. Ltb. de
Fontif. pref.
Even Barlaajn the Monk denies it. What Law,
fays he, obligeth us to reckon the Bifhop of Rome
Peters only Succeflbr, that mull: rule all the reft ? He
goes further, and denies Peter to have been Bijhop of
Rome ; as many of our Proteftant Writers do. De
princip. cap. ^. in Bihl, pair. vid. Fane. Chron,
Now, of all thefe pretended Succeflions, the Roman
(from whence the Englifh Prelacy derives itfelf) is
moft fufpitious, as beuig often interrupted by Sirnonyy
Herefy and Schifm.
5. By this Principle none can tell whether they be
Miniders of Chrift : How fliall they know that all
the Predeceflbrs of that Bifhop who ordain'd them
were Canonical Bifliops ? that none of em were guil-
ty of Simony or Herefy, or any other Ads or Things
that make Canonical Nullities ? Can any Mortal
know who was the BiHiop that was the Root of his
Succeilion ?
6. Let it be further confider'd, that the antient
Catalogues of the Apoftle's Succeflbrs were made by
Conjecture. Eufeb, Eccl. Hifl. lib. 3. cap.^. This
Mr. J. OwenV flea. 89
This Succe/fion is no where fo evident as to
monflrare the thing intended. A Lift woii'd be ex-
peded of Apoftolical SucceiTors, not only in the
great Patriarchal Churches, but in all others planted
by the Apoftles, as Philippic Corimh, Cefarea ; and not
only in Ephefus, but in all the feven Churches of Afiay
which has not been yet produc'd. In the Patriarchal
Churches, the beginning of the Line is infcrutable.
At Rome, 'tis not certain, whether Linus ^ Cletusy
Anacletus, or Clemens are to be reckon'd firft.
As for Antiochy 'tis not yet agreed whether Peter,
Euodius or Ignatius fucceeded Peter or Pauly or the
one and the other Paul : At Alexandria, where the
Succce/Iion feems to run cleareft, the Original of the
Power is imputed to the Presbyters, as was obferv'd
already.
7. If there be any Certainty in this Succeflion, the
Fathers afcribe it to Presbyters as much as to Bi-
Ihops. Ignatius, a Man of indifputable Authority
with Prelates, faith, T'hat the Presbyters fucceeded in the
place of the Bench of the Apofiles. reHv Tf6(r/3yT«f
ad M^^gp- 3^' 'vof. Ed.
Irenaus, another fuppofed Champion of the Party,
affirms tlie fame- Traditionem, ah Apoflolis, qua per
Succefftonem Presbytcrorum. adv* har, I, 3.
The Apoftles ordain*d as Presbyters, and in that
Capacity Presbyters Aicceed em ; but 'tis the Siic-
ceffion of Do6trine and not of Perfons that the Fathers
principally inftftupon.
The Succeflion of Perfons without the Orthodox
Doftrine is no Mark of a true Churth ; as among
the Arians, where they had a Succeflion of Bifhops,
and yet no true Church. Nazian. in laud. Athan.
Now the Swcceflion of true Dodrine being wanting
in the Popifli Church, the Succeflion of Perfons is only
an empty Name to circumvent and amufe the fimple.
3 Olj\ Ifchyras was depos'd becaufe he was ordain'd
by Colluthus, an Alexandrian Pcesbyter. Halfs Div.
Right
QO . >^'^ Ahridgrne\ft of
Right, ^\i ^2. Biifons Perp. Gov. r. 13. Athanaf. 2 ApoL
Anjw' I. Colluthns ordain'd as a pretended Bifhop,
conlHtuted by Meletius Archbiftiop of "thehaisy there-
fore was commanded by the Council to be a Presby-
ter, as he had been formerly.
Dr. Stillingfleet fays, Colluthtis did not ad as a /'n/-
/i^ttr in Ordaining, but as a Bifhop of the Mektian
Party in Cy//«J, as the Clergy of Mareotis fpeaking of
Jfchyras's Ordination iAjb^ n^xt^is^it rS ^gfTiSvii^s ^e^SfcS-wT®-
ixitrxeriivy by Colluthus u Presbyter making a Jhew of being
a Bijlopy and is fuppos'd to have been ordain'd Bi-
fhop by Meletius. Iren.p .381, 382.
2. Ifchyras's Ordination was declar'd void becaiife
he was not mentioned in the Breviculum, or Regiiler
of thofe who had been ordain'd by Meletius, And
yet Athanaftus himfelf acknowledges, that the Eufe-
bians and Melitians own*d that he was a Presbyter.
Apol> 2,p' 781. and in his Letter toAthanaJius he does
not difown it. p* jiS.
3. If Ifchyras had been ordain'd by a Bifliop, there
were Circumftances enoijgh to induce the Council to
pronounce it null, as done out of the Diocefs, or
by Schifmaticks, or without a Title ; in which Cafes,
even Epifcopal Ordination were declared null. Thefe
v/ere Circumftances that made 'em uncanonical :
fo that the irregular Ordination of a Bifliop is as
null as the irregular Ordination of a Presbyter; and
therefore the irregular Bifliop and the irregular Pref-
byter are of the fame Order and Authority. Confil,
Arel. cap, 13. Cmc Nic- vtd. Naked 'Truth, p- 45.
When Presbyters Ordinations were accounted void,
'tis, fays Dr. FieMy to be underftood according to
the rigour of Canons in ufe in their Age, which ap-
pears by this that Ordination Jlne tipulo were null.
Cone. Chalced, can, <5.
What Jerom fpeaks in the next Objection, is only of
a Canonical Reflraint, which can't prejudice their in-