of Samaria praying over them and giving them the Holy Ghost made supply to them of what was wanting after Baptisme and this is to this day done in the Church for new baptized people are brought to the Bishops and by imposition of their hands obtaine the Holy Ghost But for this who pleases to be farther satisfied in the Primitive faith of Christendome may see it in the decretall Epistles of Cornelius the Martyr to Fabianus recorded by Eusebius in the Epistle written to Iulius and Iulianus Bishops under the name of S. Clement in the Epistle of Vrban P. and Martyr in Tertullian in S. Austen and in S. Cyrill of Ierusalem whose whole third Mistagogique Catechiâ—me is concerning Confirmation This only The Catholicks whose Christian prudence it was in all true respects to disadvantage Hereticks least their poyson should infect like a Pest layd it in Novatus dish as a crime He was baptized in his bed and was not confirmed Vnde nec Spiritum sanctum unquam potuerit promereri therefore he could never receive the gift of the holy Ghost So Cornelius in the forequoted Epistle Whence it is evident that then it was the beliefe of Christendome that the holy Ghost was by no ordinary ministery given to faithfull people after Baptisme but only by Apostolicall or Episcopall consignation and imposition of hands What also the faith of Christendome was concerning the Minister of confirmation and that Bishops only could doe it I shall make evident in the descent of this discourse Here the Scene lies in Scripture where it is cleare that S. Philip one of the 72. Disciples as antiquity reports him and an Evangelist and a Disciple as Scripture also expresses him could not impose hands for application of the promise of the Father and ministeriall giving of the holy Ghost but the Apostles must goe to doe it and also there is no example in Scripture of any that ever did it but an Apostle and yet this is an ordinary Ministery which de jure ought de facto alwaies was continued in the Church Therefore there must alwaies be an ordinary office of Apostleship in the Church to doe it that is an office above Presbyters for in Scripture they could never doe it and this is it which we call Episcopacy 3. THe Apostles were rulers of the whole Church each Apostle respectively of his severall Diocesse when he would fixe his chaire had superintendency over the Presbyters and the people and this by Christs donation the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this Sicut misit me Pater sic ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri Iesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes said Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop in the Councell of Carthage related by S. Cyprian and S. Austin But however it is evident in Scripture that the Apostles had such superintendency over the inferior Clergy Presbyters I mean and Deacons and a superiority of jurisdiction and therefore it is certain that Christ gave it them for none of the Apostles took this honour but he that was called of God as was Aaron 1. Our blessed Saviour gave to the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis It was sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent so I send You my Apostles whom I have chosen This was not said to Presbyters for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ but at their first mission to preach repentance I say no commission at all they were not spoken to they were not present Now then consider Suppose that as Aërius did deny the Divine institution of Bishops over the Presbyters cum grege another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of Presbyters what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to shew the Divine institution of them as a distinct order from Apostles or Bishops Indeed Christ selected 72. and gave them commission to preach but that commission was temporary and expired before the crucifixion for ought appeares in Scripture If it be said the Apostles did ordaine Presbyters in every City it is true but not sufficient for so they ordained Deacons at Ierusalem and in all established Churches and yet this will not tant ' amount to an immediate Divine institution for Deacons and how can it then for Presbyters If we say a constant Catholick traditive interpretation of Scripture does teach us that Christ did institute the Presbyterate together with Episcopacy and made the Apostles Presbyters as well as Bishops this is true But then 1. We recede from the plain words of Scripture and rely upon tradition which in this question of Episcopacy will be of dangerous consequence to the enimies of it for the same tradition if that be admitted for good probation is for Episcopall preheminence over Presbyters as will appeare in the sequel 2. Though no use be made of this advantage yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered that it can never bee proved from Scripture that Christ made the Apostles Priests first and then Bishops or Apostles but only that Christ gave them severall commissions and parts of the office Apostolicall all which being in one person cannot by force of Scripture prove two orders Truth is if we change the scene of warre and say that the Presbyterate as a distinct order from the ordinary office of Apostleship is not of Divine institution the proof of it would be harder then for the Divine institution of Episcopacy Especially if we consider that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clericâ—â—l offices there is no enumeration of Presbyters but of Apostles there is and the other members of the induction are of guifts of Christianity or parâ—â— of the Apostolate and either must inferre many more orders then the Church ever yet admitted of or none distinct from the Apostolate insomuch as Apostles were Pastors and Teachers and Evangelists and Rulers and had the guift of tongues of healing and of Miracles This thing is of great consideration and this use I will make of it That either Christ made the 72 to be Presbyters and in them instituted the distinct order of Presbyterate as the ancient Church alwaies did believe or else he gave no distinct commission for any such distinct order If the second be admitted then the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution but of Apostolicall only as is the Order of Deacons and the whole plenitude of power is in the order Apostolicall alone and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power as they did Deacons with a lesse But if the first be said then the commission to the 72 Presbyters being only of preaching that we find in Scripture all the rest of their power
delinquent before specified which delegation was needlesse if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then returne we to the consideration of S. Hieromes saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Counsell of the Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops were Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custome rather then Divine disposition S. Hierome affirmes but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custome and condescension rather then by Divine disposition S. Hierome does not say but it was For he speakes onely of matter of fact not of right It might have beene otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Ierusalem where the Elders were Apostolicall men and had Episcopall authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocesse besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Ierusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Iurisdiction and therefore does clearely evince that the common-counsell of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as S. Peter and S. Iohn in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes us'd in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did governe in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaën and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sense that S. Peter and S. Iohn were and the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem * 4. Suppose this had beene true in the sense that any body please to imagine yet this not being by any divine ordinance that Presbyters should by their Counsell assist in externall regiment of the Church neither by any intimation of Scripture nor by affirmation of S. Hierome it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose Postquà m omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata alitèr composita res est quà m caperat It might be so at first de facto and yet no need to be so neither then nor after For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of it 's owne nor Crete and there was no need for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them and S. Iohn and other of the Apostles but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither for when themselves were to goe away the power must be concredited to another And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters yet it was but in dependance on the Apostles and by substitution not by any ordinary power and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle or the sending of a Bishop to reside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a businesse of being persecuted he writ to his Presbyters Doe you feed the flock amongst you till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler viz. My Successor No longer Your commission expires when a Bishop comes * 5. To the conclusion of S. Hieromes discourse viz. That Bishops are not greater then Presbyters by the truth of divine disposition I answer that this is true in this sense Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater then all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters such as were the Elders in the Councell at Ierusalem such as were they of Antioch such as S. Peter and S. Iohn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sense that is of a fixt and particular Diocesse and Iurisdiction * 2 ly S. Hieromes meaning is also true in this sense Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater then Presbyters viz. quoad exercitium actûs that is they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their owne persons but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters and that they did not so but kept the exercise of it only in their owne hands in S. Hieromes time this is it which he saith is rather by custome then by Divine dispensation for it was otherwise at first viz. de facto and might be so still there being no law of God against the delegation of power Episcopall * As for the last words in the objection Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere it is an assumentum of S. Hieromes owne for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names and common regiment de facto not de jure and from a fact to conclude with a Debere is a Non sequitur unlesse this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former arguments that is THEY OUGHT not by Gods law but in imitation of the practise Apostolicall to wit when things are as they were then when the Presbyters are such as then they were THEY OUGHT for many considerations and in Great cases not by the necessity of a Divine precept * And indeed to doe him right he so explaines himselfe Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere imitantes Moysen qui cùm haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret The Presbyters ought to Iudge in common with the Bishop for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses who might have rul'd alone yet was content to take others to him and himselfe only to rule in chiefe Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops doe but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them and therefore though his Councell perhaps might be good then yet it is necessary at no time and was not followed then and to be sure is needlesse now * For the arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this his intention what ever it is I have and shall else where produce for they yeeld many other considerations then this collection of S. Hierome and prove nothing lesse then the equality of the offices of Episcocy and Presbyterate The same thing is per omnia respondent to the paralell place of S. Chrysostome It is needlesse to repeat either the objection or answer * But however this saying of S. Hierome and the paralell of S. Chrysostome is but like an argument against an Evident truth which comes forth upon a desperate service and they are sure to be kill'd by the adverse party or to runne upon their owne Swords For either they are to be understood in the
speake a truth in sincerity then erre with a glorious correspondence But will not necessity excuse them who could not have orders from Orthodoxe Bishops shall we either sinne against our consciences by suscribing to hereticall and false resolutions in materiâ fidei or else loose the being of a Church for want of Episcopall ordinations * Indeed if the case were just thus it was very hard with the good people of the transmarine Churches but I have here two things to consider 1. I am very willing to beleive that they would not have done any thing either of error or suspition but in cases of necessity But then I consider that M. Du Plessis a man of honour and Great learning does attest that at the first reformation there were many Arch-Bishops and Cardinalls in Germany England France and Italy that joyn'd in the reformation whom they might but did not imploy in their ordinations And what necessity then can be pretended in this case I would faine learne that I might make their defence But which is of more and deeper consideration for this might have been done by inconsideration and irresolution as often happens in the beginning of great changes but it is their constant and resolved practise at least in France that if any returnes to them they will reordayne him by their Presbytery though he had before Episcopall Ordination as both their friends and their enemies beare witnesse 2. I consider that necessity may excuse a personall delinquency but I never heard that necessity did build a Church Indeed no man is forc'd for his owne particular to committ a sinne for if it be absolutely a case of necessity the action ceases to be a sinne but indeed if God meanes to build a Church in any place he will doe it by meanes proportionable to that end that is by putting them into a possibility of doing and acquiring those things which himselfe hath required of necessity to the constitution of a Church * So that supposing that Ordination by a Bishop is necessary for the vocation of Priests and Deacons as I have proved it is and therefore for the founding or perpetuating of a Church either God hath given to all Churches opportunity and possibility of such Ordinations and then necessity of the contrary is but pretence and mockery or if he hath not given such possibility then there is no Church there to be either built or continued but the Candlestick is presently removed There are diverse stories in Ruffinus to this purpose When Aedesius and Frumentius were surprized by the Barbarous Indians they preached Christianity and baptized many but themselves being but Lay-men could make no Ordinations and so not fixe a Church What then was to be done in the case Frumentius Alexandriam pergit .... rem omnem ut gesta est narrat EPISCOPO ac monet ut provideat virum aliquem dignum quem congregatis jam plurimis Christianis in Barbarico solo Episcopum mittat Frumentius comes to Alexandria to get a Bishop Athanasius being then Patriarch ordayn'd Frumentius their Bishop tradito ei Sacerdotio redire eum cum Domini Gratiâ unde venerat jubet .... ex quo saith Ruffinus in Indiae partibus populi Christianorum Ecclesiae factaae sunt Sacer dotium caepit The same happened in the case of the Iberians converted by a Captive woman posteà verò quà m Ecclesia magnificè constructa est populi fidem Dei majore ardore sitiebant captivae monitis ad Imperatorem Constantinum totius Gentis legatio mittitur Res gesta exponitur SACERDOTES mittere oratur qui caeptum ergà se Dei munus implerent The worke of Christianity could not be completed nor a Church founded without the Ministery of Bishops * Thus the case is evident that the want of a Bishop will not excuse us from our endeavours of acquiring one and where God meanes to found a Church there he will supply them with those meanes and Ministeries which himselfe hath made of ordinary and absolute necessity And therefore if it happens that those Bishops which are of ordinary Ministration amongst us prove hereticall still Gods Church is Catholike and though with trouble yet Orthodoxe Bishops may be acquir'd For just so it happen'd when Mauvia Queene of the Saracens was so earnest to have Moses the Hermit made the Bishop of her Nation and offer'd peace to the Catholikes upō that condition Lucius an Arrian troubled the affayre by his interposing and offering to ordayne Moses The Hermit discover'd his vilenesse ita majore dedecore deformatus compulsus est acquiescere Moses refus'd to be ordayn'd by him that was an Arrian So did the reform'd Churches refuse ordinations by the Bishops of the Roman communion But what then might they have done Even the same that Moses did in that necessity compulsus est ab Episcopis quos in exilium truserat Lucius sacerdotium sumere Those good people might have had orders from the Bishops of England or the Lutheran Churches if at least they thought our Churches Catholike and Christian. If an ordinary necessity will not excuse this will not an extraordinary calling justifie it Yea most certainely could we but see an ordinary proofe for an extraordinary calling viz an evident prophecy demonstration of Miracles certainety of reason clarity of sense or any thing that might make faith of an extraordinary mission But shall we then condemne those few of the Reformed Churches whose ordinations alwaies have beene without Bishops No indeed That must not be They stand or fall to their owne Master And though I cannot justifie their ordinations yet what degree their Necessity is of what their desire of Episcopall ordinations may doe for their personall excuse and how farre a good life and a Catholike beleife may leade a man in the way to heaven although the formes of externall communion be not observ'd I cannot determine * For ought I know their condition is the same with that of the Church of Pergamus I know thy works and where thou dwellest even where Sathans seate is and thou heldest fast my FAITH and hast not denied my Name Nihilominus habeo adversus te pauca some few things I have against thee and yet of them the want of Canonicall ordinations is a defect which I trust themselves desire to be remedied but if it cannot be done their sinne indeed is the lesse but their misery the Greater * I am sure I have said sooth but whether or no it will be thought so I cannot tell and yet why it may not I cannot guesse unlesse they only be impeccable which I suppose will not so easily be thought of them who themselves thinke that all the Church possibly may faile But this I would not have declar'd so freely had not the necessity of our owne Churches requir'd it and that the first pretence of the legality and validity of their ordinations beene boyed up to the height of an
OF THE SACRED ORDER AND OFFICES OF EPISCOPACIE By Divine Institution Apostolicall Tradition and Catholique Practice TOGETHER WITH Their Titles of Honour Secular Employment Manner of Election Delegation of their Power and other appendant questions asserted against the Aërians and Acephali new and old By IER TAYLOR D. D. Chaplaine in Ordinarie to His MAJESTIE Published by His MAJESTIES Command ROM 13. 1. There is no power but of God The Powers that be are ordained of God CONCIL CHALCED 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for RICHARD ROYSTON at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1647. TO THE TRVLY VVORTHY AND MOST ACCOMPLISHT S t CHRISTOPHER HATTON Knight of the Honourable Order of the BATH SIR I AM ingag'd in the defence of a Great Truth and J would willingly finde a shrowd to cover my selfe from danger and calumny and although the cause both is ought to be defended by Kings yet my person must not goe thither to Sanctuary unlesse it be to pay my devotion and I have now no other left for my defence I am robd of that which once did blesse me and indeed still does but in another manner and I hope will doe more but those distillations of coelestiall dewes are conveyed in Channels not pervious to an eye of sense and now adayes we seldome look with other be the object never so beauteous or alluring You may then think Sir I am forc'd upon You may that beg my pardon and excuse but I should do an injury to Your Noblenesse if I should onely make You a refuge for my need pardon this truth you are also of the fairest choice not only for Your love of Learning for although that be eminent in You yet it is not Your eminence but for Your duty to H. Church for Your loyaltie to His sacred Majestie These did prompt me with the greatest confidence to hope for Your faire incouragement and assistance in my pleadings for Episcopacy in which cause Religion and Majesty the King and the Church are 〈…〉 agoe and registred in the Law to make it authentick Laici sunt infensi Clericis Now the Clergy pray but fight not and therefore if not specially protected by the King contra Ecclesiam Malignantium they are made obnoxious to all the contumelies and injuries which an envious multitude will inflict upon them It was observ'd enough in King Edgars time Quamvis decreta Pontificum verba Sacerdotum in convulâ—is ligaminibus velut fundamenta montium fixa sunt tamen plerumque tempestatibus turbinibus saecularium rerum Religio S. Matris Ecclesiae maculis reproborum dissipatur acrumpitur Idcirco Decrevimus Nos c. There was a sad example of it in K. Iohn's time For when he threw the Clergy from his Protection it is incredible what injuries what affronts what robberies yea what murders were committed upon the Bishops and Priests of H. Church whom neither the Sacrednesse of their persons nor the Lawes of God nor the terrors of Conscience nor feares of Hell nor Church-censures nor the Lawes of Hospitality could protect from Scorne 〈◊〉 neer a tye as the necessity of their own preservation in the midst of so apparent danger it will tye the Bishops hearts and hands to the King faster then all the tyes of Lay-Allegiance all the Politicall tyes I mean all that are not precisely religious and obligations in the Court of Conscience 2. But the interest of the Bishops is conjunct with the prosperity of the King besides the interest of their own securitie by the obligation of secular advantages For they who have their livelyhood from the King and are in expectance of their fortune from him are more likely to pay a tribute of exacter duty then others whose fortunes are not in such immediate dependancy on His Majesty Aeneas Sylvius once gave a merry reason why Clerks advanced the Pope above a Councell viz. because the Pope gave spirituall promotions but the Councels gave none It is but the Common expectation of gratitude that a Patron Paramount shall be more assisted by his Beneficiaries in cases of necessity then by those who receive nothing from him but the common influences of Goverment 3. But the Bishops duty to the King derives it selfe from a higher fountaine For it is one of the maine excellencies in Christianity that it advances the State and well being of Monarchies and Bodies Politique Now then the Fathers of Religion the Reverend Bishops whose peculiar office it is to promote the interests of Christianity are by the nature and essentiall requisites of their office bound to promote the Honour and Dignity of Kings whom Christianity would have so much honour'd as to establish the just subordination of people to their Prince upon better principles then ever no lesse then their precise duty to God and the hopes of a blissefull immortality Here then is utile honestum and necessarium to tye Bishops in duty to Kings and a threefold Cord is not easily broken In pursuance of these obligations Episcopacy payes three returnes of tribute to Monarchy 1. The first is the Duty of their people For they being by God himselfe set over soules judges of the most secret recesses of our Consciences and the venerable Priests under them have more power to keep men in their duteous subordination to the Prince then there is in any secular power by how much more forcible the impressions of the Conscience are then all the externall violence in the world And this power they have fairely put into act for there was never any Protestant Bishop yet in Rebellion unlesse he turn'd recreant to his Order and it is the honour of the Church of England that all her Children and obedient people are full of indignation against Rebells be they of any interest or party whatsoever For here for it we thanke God and good Princes Episcopacy hath been preserv'd in faire priviledges and honour and God hath blest and honour'd Episcopacy with the conjunction of a loyall people As if because in the law of Nature the Kingdome and Priesthood were joyned in one person it were naturall and consonant to the first justice that Kings should defend the rights of the Church and the Church advance the honour of Kings And when I consider that the first Bishop that was exauctorated was a Prince too Prince and Bishop of Geneva me thinks it was an ill Omen that the cause of the Prince and the Bishop should be in Conjunction ever after 2. A second returne that Episcopacy makes to Royalty is that which is the Duty of all Christians the paying tributes and impositions And though all the Kings Leige people doe it yet the issues of their duty and liberality are mightily disproportionate if we consider their unequall Number and Revenues And if Clergy-subsidies be estimated according to the smallnesse of their revenue and paucity of persons it will not be half so short of the number and weight of Crownes from Lay Dispensation as it does farre exceed
which now they have is by Apostolicall ordinance and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis for then they must have made them Apostles and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolicall institution neither I care not which part be chosen one is certain but if either of them be true then since to the Apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power it followes that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction as affixed to a distinct order and then the Apostles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolicall or if they have jurisdiction they doe derive it à fonte Apostolorum and then the Apostles have superiority of Iurisdiction over Presbyters because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolicall And that I say truth besides that there is no possibility of shewing the contrary in Scripture by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters then what I have specified I will hereafter shew it to have been the faith and practise of Christendome not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship but that Presbyters have no Iurisdiction essentiall to their order but derivative only from Apostolicall preheminence 2. Let us now see the matter of fact They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of Iurisdiction over Presbyters for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest saith the Law Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter and a Bishop Would be that for his peremptory rejection of some faithfull people from the Catholick communion without cause and without authority S. Iohn the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gajus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore when I come I will remember him and all that would have been to very little purpose if he had not had coercitive jurisdiction to have punish't his delinquency 3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new ordination as Matthias succeeded Iudas who before his new ordination was one of the 72. as Eusebius Epiphanius and S. Ierome affirme and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with Iesus S. Clement succeeded S. Peter at Rome S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. Iames at Ierusalem S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea diverse others of the 72 reckoned by Dorotheus Eusebius others of the Fathers did governe the severall Churches after the Apostles death which before they did not Now it is cleare that he that receives no more power after the Apostles then he had under them can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge or Churches It followes then since as will more fully appeare anon Presbyters did succeed the Apostles that under the Apostles they had not such jurisdiction as afterwards they had But the Apostles had the same to which the Presbyters succeeded to therefore greater then the Presbyters had before they did succeed When I say Presbyters succeeded the Apostles I meane not as Presbyters but by a new ordination to the dignity of Bishops so they succeeded and so they prove an evidence of fact for a superiority of Iurisdiction in the Apostolicall Clergy *** Now that this superiority of Iurisdiction was not temporary but to be succeeded in appeares from Reason and from ocular demonstration or of the thing done 1. If superiority of Iurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolicall for the regiment of the Church there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession since upon the emergency of Schismes and Heresies which were foretold should multiply in descending ages government and superiority of jurisdiction unity of supremacy and coërcion was more necessary then at first when extraordinary gifts might supply what now we expect to be performed by an ordinary authority 2. Whatsoever was the regiment of the Church in the Apostles times that must be perpetuall not so as to have all that which was personall and temporary but so as to have no other for that and that only is of Divine institution which Christ committed to the Apostles and if the Church be not now governed as then We can shew no Divine Authority for our government which we must contend to doe and doe it too or be call'd usurpers For either the Apostles did governe the Church as Christ commanded them or not If not then they fayl'd in the founding of the Church and the Church is not built upon a Rock If they did as most certainly they did then either the same disparity of jurisdiction must be retayn'd or else we must be governned with an Unlawfull and unwarranted equality because not by that which only is of immediate divine institution and then it must needs be a fine government where there is no authority and where no man is superiour 3. We see a disparity in the Regiment of Churches warranted by Christ himselfe and confirmed by the Holy Ghost in fayrest intimation I meane the seaven Angel-Presidents of the seaven Asian Churches If these seaven Angels were seaven Bishops that is Prelates or Governours of these seaven Churches in which it is evident and confessed of all sides there were many Presbyters then it is certaine that a Superiority of Iurisdiction was intended by Christ himselfe and given by him insomuch as he is the fountaine of all power derived to the Church For Christ writes to these seaven Churches and directs his Epistles to the seaven Governours of these Churches calling them Angels which it will hardly be suppos'd he would have done if the function had not been a ray of the Sunne of righteousnesse they had not else been Angels of light nor starres held in Christ's owne right hand This is certaine that the function of these Angels whatsoever it be is a Divine institution Let us then see what is meant by these starres and Angels The seaven starres are the Angells of the seaven Churches and the seaven Candlesticks are the seaven Churches 1. Then it is evident that although the Epistles were sent with a finall intention for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocesse with an Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesijs yet the personall direction was not to the whole Church for the whole Church is called the Candlestick and the superscription of the Epistles is not to the seaven Candlesticks but to the seaven starres which are the Angels of the seaven Churches viz. the lights shining in the Candlesticks By the Angell therefore is not cannot be mean't the whole Church 2. It is plaine that by the Angel is mean't the Governour of the Church 1. Because of the title of eminency The Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Messenger the Legate the Apostle of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For
God set over the people and it is commanded by the precept of the holy Gospell that he should guide them by a Fathers right And in the close of his discourse Sic certè à Domino ad B. Petrum dicitur Petre amas me .... repetitum est à Domino tertiò Pasceoves meas Quas oves quem gregem non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus sed cum illo nos suscepimus omnes Our blessed Lord committed his sheep to S. Peter to be fed and in him we who have Pastorall or Episcopall authority have received the same authority and commission Thus also divers of the Fathers speaking of the ordination of S. Timothy to be Bishop and of S. Paul's intimation that it was by Prophecy affirme it to be done by order of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostome he was ordained by Prophecy that is by the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou wert not made Bishop by humane constitution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Oecumenius By Divine revelation saith Theodoret. By the command of the Holy Ghost so Theophylact and indeed so S. Paul to the assembly of Elders and Bishops met at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to be sure S. Timothy was amongst them and he was a Bishop and so were diverse others there present therefore the order it selfe is a ray streaming from the Divine beauty since a single person was made Bishop by revelation I might multiply authorities in this particular which are very frequent and confident for the Divine institution of Episcopacy in Origen in the Councell of Carthage recorded by S. Cyprian in the collection of the Orientall Canons by Martinus Bracarensis in the Councells of Aquisgrane and Toledo and many more The summe is that which was taught by S. Sixtus Apostolorum dispositione ordinante Domino Episcopi primitùs sunt constituti The Lord did at first ordaine and the Apostles did so order it and so Bishops at first had their Originall constitution These and all the former who affirme Bishops to be successors of the Apostles by consequence to have the same institution drive all to the same issue and are sufficient to make faith that it was the do-doctrine Primitive and Catholick that Episcopacy is a divine institution which Christ Planted in the first founding of Christendome which the Holy Ghost Watered in his first descent on Pentecost and to which we are confident that God will give an increase by a never failing succession unlesse where God removes the Candlestick or which is all one takes away the starre the Angell of light from it that it may be invelop'd in darknesse usque ad consummationem saeâ—uli aperturam tenebrarum The conclusion of all I subjoyne in the words of Venerable Bede before quoted sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti Bishops are distinct from Presbyters and Superiour to them by the law of God THE second Basis of Episcopacy is Apostolicall tradition We have seen what Christ did now wee shall see what was done by his Apostles And since they knew their Masters mind so well wee can never better confide in any argument to prove Divine institution of a derivative authority then the practise Apostolicall Apostoli enim Discipuli veritatis existentes extra omne mendacium sunt non enim communicat mendacium veritati sicut non communicant tenebrae luci sed praesentia alterius excludit alterum saith S. Irenaeus FIrst then the Apostles did presently after the ascension fixe an Apostle or a Bishop in the chayre of Ierusalem For they knew that Ierusalem was shortly to be destroyed they themselves foretold of miseryes and desolations to insue Petrus Paulus praedicunt cladem Hierosolymitanam saith Lactantius l. 4. inst famines and warres and not a stone left upon another was the fate of that Rebellious City by Christs owne prediction which themselves recorded in Scripture And to say they understood not what they writ is to make them Enthusiasts and neither good Doctors nor wise seers But it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the holy Spirit which was promised to lead them into all truth would instruct them in so concerning an issue of publike affaires as was so Great desolation and therefore they began betimes to establish that Church and to fixe it upon it's perpetuall base 2 ly The Church of Ierusalem was to be the president and platforme for other Churches The word of God went forth into all the world beginning first at Ierusalem and therefore also it was more necessary a Bishop should be there plac'd betimes that other Churches might see their governement from whence they receiv'd their doctrine that they might see from what starres their continuall fluxe of light must streame 3 ly The Apostles were actually dispers'd by persecution and this to be sure they look'd for and therefore so implying the necessity of a Bishop to governe in their absence or decession any wayes they ordayn'd S. Iames the first Bishop of Ierusalem there he fixt his chayre there he liv'd Bishop for 30 yeares and finish'd his course with glorious Martyrdome If this be proov'd we are in a fayre way for practise Apostolicall First let us see all that is said of S. Iames in Scripture that may concerne this affayre Acts. 15. We find S. Iames in the Synod at Ierusalem not disputing but giving finall determination to that Great Qu about Circumcision And when there had beene much disputing Peter rose up and said c He first drave the question to an issue and told them what he beleiv'd concerning it with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we trust it will goe as well with us without circumcision as with our Forefathers who us'd it But S. Iames when he had summ'd up what had beene said by S. Peter gave sentence and finall determination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore I judge or give sentence So he The Acts of Councell which the Brethren or Presbyters did use were deliberative they disputed v. 7. S. Peter's act was declarative but S. Iames his was decisive which proves him clearely if by reasonablenesse of the thing and the successive practise of Christendome in imitation of this first Councell Apostolicall we may take our estimate that S. Iames was the President of this Synod which considering that he was none of the twelve as I proved formerly is unimaginable were it not for the advantage of the place it being held in Ierusalem where he was Hierosolymorum Episcopus as S. Clement call's him especially in the presence of S. Peter who was primus Apostolus and decked with many personall priviledges and prerogatives * Adde to this that although the whole Councell did consent to the sending of the Decretall Epistle and to send Iudas and Silas yet because they were of the Presbytery and Colledge of
suspected * To these I adde the communion of Women the distinction of bookes Apocryphall from Canonicall that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of Scripture it selfe the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution must needs prevaile as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and divers others of greater consequence which I dare not specify for feare of being misunderstood rely but upon equall faith with this of Episcopacy though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it selfe VVHat their power and eminence was and the appropriates of their office so ordain'd by the Apostles appears also by the testimonies before alleadged the expressions whereof runne in these high termes Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens they were both Prefects of the Church or Prelates that 's the Church-word Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur so Titus he is set over all the affaires of the new-founded Churches in Crete In celsiori gradu collocatus plac'd in a higher order or degree so the Bishop of Alexandria chosen ex Presbyteris from amongst the Presbyters Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes so Philo of that Bishoprick The seat of Episcopall height above all things in Christianity These are its honours Its offices these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To set in order whatsoever he sees wanting or amisse to silence vaine prating Preachers that will not submit to their superiors to ordaine elders to rebuke delinquents to reject Hereticks viz. from the communion of the faithfull for else why was the Angell of the Church of Pergamus reprov'd for tolerating the Nicolaitan hereticks but that it was in his power to eject them And the same is the case of the Angell of Thyatira in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people but to the Bishop was committed the cognisance of causes criminall and particular of Presbyters so to Timothy in the instance formerly alleadged nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority so in the case of Titus and officium regendae Ecclesiae the office of ruling the Church so to them all whom the Apostles left in the severall Churches respectively which they had new founded So Eusebius For the Bishop was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over all Clergy and Laity saith S. Clement This was given to Bishops by the Apostles themselves and this was not given to Presbyters as I have already prooved and for the present it will sufficiently appeare in this that Bishops had power over Presbyters which cannot be supposed they had over themselves unlesse they could be their own superiours BUt a Councell or Colledge of Presbyters might have jurisdiction over any one and such Colledges there were in the Apostles times and they did in communi Ecclesiam regere govern the Church in common with the Bishop as saith S. Hierom viz. where there was a Bishop and where there was none they rul'd without him * This indeed will call us to a new account and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierome which I will set downe here that wee may leave the sunne without a cloud S. Ierom's words are these Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyter is electus superponeretur caeteris ut Schismatum semina tollerentur Then he brings some arguments to confirme his saying and summes them up thus Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quà m Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores in communi debere Ecclesiam regere c. The thing S. Hierome aymes to prove is the identity of Bishop Presbyter and their government of the Church in common * For their identity It is cleare that S. Hierome does not meane it in respect of order as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia one power for else he contradicts himselfe most apertly for in his Epistle ad Evagrium Quid facit saith he Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat A Presbyter may not ordayne a Bishop does which is a cleare difference of power and by S. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact but of right quod Presbyter non FACIAT not non facit that a Priest may not must not doe that a Bishop does viz. he gives holy orders * And for matter of fact S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not governe in common but because he conceived it was fit he should be joyn'd in the common regiment and care of the Diocesse therefore he asserted it as much as he could And therefore if S. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary by actuall indulgence or incroachment or positive constitution and no matter of primitive and originall right S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should come what would have come And suppose S. Hierome in this distinct power of ordination had intended it onely to be a difference in fact not in right for so some of late have muttered then S. Hierome had not said true according to his owne principles for Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat had beene quickly answered if the Question had onely beene de facto For the Bishop governed the Church alone and so in Iurisdiction was greater then Presbyters and this was by custome and in fact at least S. Hierome saies it and the Bishop tooke so much power to himselfe that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to doe any thing sine literis Episco palibus without leave of the Bishop and this S. Hierome complain'd of so that de facto the power of ordination was not the onely difference That then if S. Hierome sayes true being the onely difference betweene Presbyter and Bishop must be meant de jure in matter of right not humane positive for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction which de facto and at least by a humane right the Bishop had over Presbyters but Divine and then this identity of Bishop and Presbyter by S. Hierom's owne
senses above explicated and then they are impertinent or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Catholike antiquity and so are false and dye within their owne trenches I end this argument of tradition Apostolicall with that saying of S. Hierome in the same place Postquam Vnusquisque eos quos baptiz abat suos put abat esse non Christi diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo Ego autem Cepha in toto orbe decretum est ut Vnus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeter is ut schismatum semina tollerentur That is a publike decree issued out in the Apostles times that in all Churches one should be chosen out of the Clergy and set over them viz. to rule and governe the flock commited to his charge This I say was in the Apostles times even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schisme for then they said I am of Paul and I of Apollo and then it was that he that baptized any Catechumens tooke them for his owne not as Christs disciples So that it was tempore Apostolorum that this decree was made for in the time of the Apostles S. Iames and S. Marke and S. Timothy and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieromes expresse attestation It was also toto orbe decretum so that if it had not beene proved to have beene an immediate Divine institution yet it could not have gone much lesse it being as I have proved and as S. Hierome acknowledges CATHOLIKE and APOSTOLICK * BEe ye followers of me as I am of Christ is an Apostolicall precept We have seene how the Apostles have followed Christ how their tradition is consequent of Divine institution Next let us see how the Church hath followed the Apostles as the Apostles have followed Christ. CATHOLIKE PRACTISE is the next Basis of the power and order of Episcopacy And this shall be in subsidium to them also that call for reduction of the state Episcopall to a primitive consistence and for the confirmation of all those pious sonnes of Holy Church who have a venerable estimate of the publike and authoriz'd facts of Catholike Christendome * For Consider we Is it imaginable that all the world should immediately after the death of the Apostles conspire together to seek themselves and not caquae sunt Iesu Christi to erect a government of their owne devising not ordayn'd by Christ not delivered by his Apostles and to relinquish a Divine foundation and the Apostolicall superstructure which if it was at all was a part of our Masters will which whosoever knew and observed not was to be beaten with many stripes Is it imaginable that those gallant men who could not be brought off from the prescriptions of Gentilisme to the seeming impossibilities of Christianity without evidence of Miracle and clarity of Demonstration upon agreed principles should all upon their first adhesion to Christianity make an Universall dereliction of so considerable a part of their Masters will and leave Gentilisme to destroy Christianity for he that erects another Oeconomy then what the Master of the family hath ordayn'd destroyes all those relations of mutuall dependance which Christ hath made for the coadunation of all the parts of it and so destroyes it in the formality of a Christian congregation or family * Is it imaginable that all those glorious Martyrs that were so curious observers of Divine Sanctions and Canons Apostolicall that so long as that ordinance of the Apostles concerning abstinence from bloud was of force they would rather dye then eat a strangled hen or a pudding for so Eusebius relates of the Christians in the particular instance of Biblis and Blandina that they would be so sedulous in the contemning the government that Christ left for his family and erect another * To what purpose were all their watchings their banishments their fears their fastings their penances and formidable austerities and finally their so frequent Martyrdomes of what excellency or availe if after all they should be hurried out of this world and all their fortunes and possessions by untimely by disgracefull by dolourous deaths to be set before a tribunall to give account of their universall neglect and contemning of Christs last testament in so great an affaire as the whole government of his Church * If all Christendome should be guilty of so open so united a defiance against their Master by what argument or confidence can any misbeliever be perswaded to Christianity which in all its members for so many ages together is so unlike its first institution as in its most publike affaire and for matter of order of the most generall concernement is so contrary to the first birth * Where are the promises of Christ's perpetuall assistance of the impregnable permanence of the 〈◊〉 â—â—ch against the gates of Hell of the Spirit of truth to lead it into all truth if she be guilty of so grand an errour as to erect a throne where Christ had made all levell or appointed others to sit in it then whom he suffers * Either Christ hath left no government or most certainly the Church hath retain'd that Government whatsoever it is for the contradictory to these would either make Christ improvident or the Catholick Church extreamely negligent to say no worse and incurious of her depositum * But upon the confidence of all * Christendome if there were no more in it I * suppose we may fairely venture Sit anima mea * cum Christianis THE first thing done in Christendome upon the death of the Apostles in this matter of Episcopacy is the distinguishing of Names which before were common For in holy Scripture all the names of Clericall offices were given to the superiour order and particularly all offices and parts and persons design'd in any imployment of the sacred Preisthood were signified by Presbyter and Presbyterium And therefore least the confusion of Names might perswade an identity and indistinction of office the wisdome of H. Church found it necessary to distinguish and separate orders and offices by distinct and proper appellations For the Apostles did know by our Lord Iesus Christ that contentions would arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the name of Episcopacy saith S. Clement and so it did in the Church of Corinth as soon as their Apostle had expired his last breath But so it was 1. The Apostles which I have proved to be the supreame ordinary office in the Church and to be succeeded in we called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Peter the Apostle the Elders or Presbyters that are among you I also who am an Elder or Presbyter doe intreat Such elders S. Peter spoke to as he was himselfe to wit those to whom the regiment of the Church was committed the Bishops of Asia Pontus Galatia Cappadocia and Bithynia that is to Timothy to Titus to Tycbicus to Sosipater to the Angells of the Asian Churches and
absolute necessity for else why shall it be called Tyranny in us to call on them to conforme to us and to the practise of the Catholike Church and yet in them be called a good and a holy zeale to exact our conformity to them But I hope it will so happen to us that it will be verifyed here what was once said of the Catholikes under the fury of Iustina sed tanta fuit perseverantia fidelium populorum vt animas priùs amittere quà m Episcopum mallent If it were put to our choice rather to dye to wit the death of Martyrs not rebells then loose the sacred order and offices of Episcopacy without which no Priest no ordination no consecration of the Sacrament no absolution no rite or Sacrament legitimately can be performed in order to eternity The summe is this If the Canons and Sanctions Apostolicall if the decrees of eight famous Councells in Christendome of Ancyra of Antioch of Sardis of Alexandria two of Constantinople the Arausican Councell and that of Hispalis if the constant successive Acts of the famous Martyr Bishops of Rome making ordinations if the testimony of the whole Pontificall book if the dogmaticall resolution of so many Fathers S. Denis S. Cornelius S. Athanasius S. Hierome S. Chrysostome S. Epiphanius S. Austin and diverse others all appropriating ordinations to the Bishops hand if the constant voice of Christendome declaring ordinations made by Presbyters to be null and voide in the nature of the thing and never any act of ordination by a Non-Bishop approoved by any Councell decretall or single suffrage of any famous man in Christendome if that ordinations of Bishops were alwaies made and they ever done by Bishops and no pretence of Priests joyning with them in their consecrations and after all this it was declared heresy to communicate the power of giving orders to Presbyters either alone or in conjunction with Bishops as it was in the case of Aërius if all this that is if whatsoever can be imagined be sufficient to make faith in this particular then it is evident that the power and order of Bishops is greater then the power and order of Presbyters to wit in this Great particular of ordination and that by this loud voyce and united vote of Christendome * BUT this was but the first part of the power which Catholick antiquity affixed to the order of Episcopacy The next is of Confirmation of baptized people And here the rule was this which was thus expressed by Damascen Apostolorum Successorum eorum est per manûs impositionem donum Spiritus sancti tradere It belongs to the Apostles and their successors to give the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands But see this in particular instance The Councell of Eliberis giving permission to faithfull people of the Laity to baptize Catechumens in cases of necessity and exigence of journey ita tamen ut si supervixerit baptizatus ad Episcopum cum perducat ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit Let him be carried to the Bishop to be improv'd by imposition of the BISHOPS hands This was Law It was also custome saith S. Cyprian Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur per Praepositos Ecclesiae offerantur per nostram orationem manûs impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur signaculo Dominico consummentur And this custome was Catholick too and the Law was of Vniversall concernement OMNES Fideles per manuum impositionem EPISCOPORUM Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent ut pleni Christiani accipere debent So S. Vrbane in his decretall Epistle And Omnibus festinandum est sine morâ renasci demùm CONSIGNARI AB EPISCOPO Et septiformem Spiritûs sancti gratiam recipere so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle under the name of S. Clement ALL FAITHFULL baptized people must goe to the Bishop to be consign'd and so by imposition of the Bishops hands to obtaine the seven fold guifts of the Holy Ghost Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spaine affirmes confirmation in this to have a speciall excellency besides baptisme quòd solùm à summis Sacerdotibus confertur because Bishops only can give confirmation And the same is said proov'd by S. Eusebius in his third Epistle enjoyning great veneration to this holy mystery quod ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus It cannot it may not be perform'd by any but by the Bishops Thus S. Chrysostome speaking of S. Philip converting the Samaritans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philip baptizing the men of Samaria gave not the Holy Ghost to them whom he had baptized For HE HAD NOT POWER For this guift was only of the twelve Apostles And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was PECULIAR to the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it comes to passe that the principall and chiefe of the Church doe it and none else And George Pachymeres the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is required that a Bishop should consigne faithfull people baptiz'd For this was the Ancient practise I shall not need to instance in too many particulars for that the Ministry of confirmation was by Catholick custome appropriate to Bishops in all ages of the Primitive Church is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Councells Fathers particularly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius Tertullian S. Innocentius the first Damasus S. Leo in Iohn the third in S. Gregory Amphilochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius and Eubulus the Councell of Orleans and of Melda and lastly of Sevill which affirmes Non licere Presbyteris .... per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptiz andis paracletum spiritum tradere It is not lawfull for Presbyters to give confirmation for it is properly an act of Episcopall power .... Chrismate spiritus S. superinfunditur Vtraque verò ista manu ore Antistitis impetramus These are enough for authority and dogmaticall resolution from antiquity For truth is the first that ever did communicate the power of confirming to Presbyters was Photius the first author of that unhappy and long lasting schisme between the Latine and Greek Churches and it was upon this occasion too For when the Bulgarians were first converted the Greekes sent Presbyters to baptize and to confirme them But the Latins sent againe to have them re-confirmed both because as they pretended the Greekes had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria nor the Presbyters a capacity of order to give confirmation The matters of fact and acts Episcopall of confirmation are innumerable but most famous are those confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of Brema and of S. Malchus attested by S. Bernard because they were ratified by miracle saith