Review of the Paraphrase of the New Testament, Addition 3 – Addition 4
Another to be inſerted at the end of the laſt Additional Annotation on Act. 14.
foreign.OF the acception of this word foreign, a controverſie there is between the two great Scholiaſts on the Canons, Zonaras and Balſamon. Zonaras on the firſt Apoſtolical Canon, [foreign. Let a Biſhop be ordained by two or three Biſhops] makes this Scholion; foreign — Now adaies the office of praiers, and invocation of the holy ſpirit at the conſecration of any is called foreign, from the Biſhops ſtretching out his hand, and bleſſing the perſon ordained, foreign, but anciently the election it ſelf was ſo called, for when the multitudes of the cities had power to chooſe their Biſhops, they aſſembled, and ſome choſe one, ſome another, & that the greater part of ſuffrages might carry it, it is ſaid that they that made the choice ſtretcht out their hands, and ſo the ſuffrages were numbred, and he that was choſen by moſt was advanced to the dignity, and thence the word foreign was taken. And accordingly, ſaith he, the Fathers of the Councils, are found to uſe the word, calling election foreign. Thus the Council of Laodicea, Can. 5. ſaith that foreign muſt not be in the preſence of the Catechumeni, meaning elections by that word. How unfitly this Scholion is applied to the firſt Apoſtolical Canon, will be eaſily judged, when it is remembred, that foreign uſed in that Canon (and ſure that was foreign antiently, and long enough before Zonaras's writing) is certainly uſed for Ordination or Conſecration, foreign or foreign the initiation to the Epiſcopal office by impoſition of hands, and not any popular or whatever kind of election. And therefore Balſamon coming to give account of this Canon, and ſeeing this Scholion of Zonaras before him, gives it (without naming him) the due refutation. Thus, foreign— This Apoſtolical Canon ſpeakes of that Ordination which is done by the Biſhops in the Church—foreign, not of the election, as ſome ſaid (following ſome unwritten reports) in reſpect of the ſtretching out the hands uſed in the elections of Biſhops by the multitude of the cities, for though in the 10th (it ſhould be the 5th) Canon of Laodicea, the Fathers command that foreign ſhould not be in the preſence of the Catechumeni, and from thence ſome ſuppoſed that this Canon ſpeakes of election, yet I beleeve they ſay not well, becauſe the ordination which is performed in the Church foreign, by the praiers belonging to initiation, is done, though there be never ſo many there, (which concludes that this Apoſtolike Canon belongs to conſecration, though the Laodicean do not.) And again the 4th Canon of the firſt Nicene Council reſolving that the election of a Biſhop ſhall be performed by all the Biſhops of the Province, foreign, at leaſt by three, the reſt ſignifying their conſents by writing, I cannot think how ſome could underſtand this Canon of the election of a Biſhop, which appoints that it ſhall be done by two or three (and ſo poſſibly by two, not neceſſarily by three) Biſhops. By this it is evident, that Zonaras, if as his premiſes prepared for it, ſo he concluded according to them, that in the Apoſtolical Canon, foreign was to be underſtood of election, and not of ordination, was foully miſtaken; But the truth is the concluſion of his Scholion ſeems to look another way, citing that Canon of Nice, which being of elections, appoints them to be by three at leaſt, where as this of foreign contents it ſelf with two or three, and in his Scholion on that Nicene Canon 4. his concluſion is expreſs, that the Apoſtolical Canon, foreign, calls conſecration and impoſition of hands by that title, and ſo not election. (So *Jus. Grec. Rom. p. 1.Harmenopulus on his Epitome Can. The Apoſtolical Canon is of conſecration and impoſition of hands, the Nicene of election.) And ſo all his premiſes of [foreign being taken for foreign election] are utterly aliene from the Canon which he had before him; And his obſervation as far from truth, that it was in latter times onelyonly that foreign came to ſignifie Ordination; His own words conclude rather the direct contrary, that at the time of the writing the firſt Apoſtolical Canon, (which by all is acknowledged genuine, and ſo written not long after the Apoſtles daies) foreign was taken in the ſenſe of Ordination, and that long after that in the Council of Laodicea, 'twas uſed for election. And it may be worth obſerving, that he that had taken ſuch unſeaſonable paines, to prove it was taken for election, had no proof for it in all antiquity, but onelyonly that one Canon of Laodicea, where indeed it is evidently uſed in that ſenſe; But whether of any other election, ſave by the Biſhops (to whom it evidently belongs in the 4th Nicene Canon) in the preſence of the people (excluding the audientes) from them to receive teſtimonie of the lives of thoſe who were to be choſen, appears not by that Canon. In the Nicene Canon 4. the difference is clear between foreign conſtituting by way of foreign election, in the beginning of the Canon, and then, (after that regularly performed) foreign ordination, in the end of it. And by that we may underſtand Theodorets meaning Eccl. Hiſt. l. 5. c. 23. when he ſaith the Canons forbid foreign, that a Biſhop have ordination without three Biſhops, not that there muſt needs be three Biſhops to impoſe hands, for that is contrary to the Apoſtolical Canon which is content with two (and yet is by Zonaras himſelf reconciled with the Nicene that requires three at leaſt) but that there muſt be three at leaſt, perſonally preſent at his election, (and that *Placuit ad probandam ordina ionem …uam, ut per omnes in iſta Provincia poſitos lite…ae fierent. Cypr. l. 4. Ep. 8.with the concurrence alſo of all the Province that are abſent) before he can be ordained lawfully, and when he is ſo elected, then he may be ordained by two. So when Syneſius, Ep. 67. ſaith of Siderius Biſhop of Palebiſca, that he was ordained foreign irregularly, foreign, if he was not conſtituted at Alexandria, or not by three Biſhops there; meaning the whole affaire, as it was made up of election, and Ordination too, to the former of which the preſence of three Biſhops was neceſſary, (though not to the latter.) And ſo in Theodoret again, l. 5. c. 9. affirming from the Nicene Canon, that the cuſtome was for the Biſhops in every Province, and the neighbouring Biſhops, if they pleaſed, foreign, to make the ordinations to the beſt advantage, he muſt be thus underſtood, not that all ſhould joyne in the Ordination or impoſition of hands, but (all of the whole Province, either perſonally, or by their letters joyning in the election) two or three ſhould impoſe hands on him. But this ex abundanti, more than was neceſſary for the notion of foreign, when 'twas uſed of the Apoſtles.
Another to be inſerted on 1 Cor. 7.17.
Verſ. 17.
[dd But.]
dd.foreign. IN this place ſome antient copies give us another reading, thus, foreign— What knoweſt thou, O man, whether thou ſhalt ſave thy wife, or no? As God hath diſtributed to every man— This we learn from Theophylact, foreign, ſaith he, foreign, ſome have read thus. And then this will take away all debate, what ſhould be the proper notation of [foreign] in the beginning of the verſe, reading it, foreign— For though, if it were certain that that were the true reading, ſome probable account might be given of it, as that [foreign] might ſignifie [OnelyOnly] or the like, yet when other copies have read it in a forme thus perſpicuous, and free from all queſtion; it will be more reaſonable to acquieſce, eſpecially conſidering, that if it ſhould be, as our copies have it, foreign, not foreign, yet joyning that to the end of v. 16. and not transferring it to the beginning of v. 17. (as 'tis certain the antient copies were not divided into verſes, or ſo pointed as ours are) then ſtill there will be as little difficulty in it, for ſo the words will be very current, foreign; What knoweſt thou, O man, if thou ſhalt ſave thy wife, if not? i. e. whether thou ſhalt, or whether thou ſhalt not.