For I consider that the baptizing of Infants does rush us upon Numb 31. such inconveniences which in other Questions we avoid like Rocks which will appear if we Discourse thus Either Baptism produces spirituall effects or it produces them not If it produces not any why is such contention about it what are we the nearer heaven if we are baptized and if it be neglected what are we the farther off But if as without all peradventure all the Paedo-baptists will say Baptism does doe a work upon the soule producing spirituall benefits and advantages these advantages are produc'd by the externall work of the Sacrament alone or by that as it is help'd by the co-operation and predispositions of the suscipient If by the externall work of the Sacrament alone how does this differ from the opus operatum of the Papists save that it is worse for they say the Sacrament does not produce its effect but in a suscipient disposed by all requisites and due preparatives of piety faith and repentance though in a subject so disposed they say the Sacrament by its own vertue does it but this opinion sayes it does it of it selfe without the help or so much as the coexistence of any condition but the meare reception But if the Sacrament does not doe its work alone but per modum recipientis according to the predispositions of the suscipient then because Infants can neither hinder it nor doe any thing to further it it does them no benefit at all And if any man runs for succour to that exploded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Infants have Faith or any other inspir'd habite of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage in the world then that they are constrained to an answer without Revelation against reason common sense and all the experience in the world The summe of the Argument in short is this though under another representment Either Baptism is a meare Ceremony or it implyes a Duty on our part If it be a Ceremony only how does it sanctifie us or make the commers therunto perfect If it implyes a Duty on our part how then can Children receive it who cannot doe duty at all And indeed this way of Ministration makes Baptism to be wholly an outward duty a work of the Law a carnall Ordinance it makes us adhere to the letter without regard of the Spirit to be satisfied with shadowes to return to bondage to relinquish the mysteriousnesse the substance and Spirituality of the Gospel Which Argument is of so much the more consideration because under the Spirituall Covenant or the Gospel of Grace if the mystery goes not before the Symbol which it does when the Symbols are Seales and Consignations of the Grace as it is said the Sacraments are yet it alwayes accompanies it but never followes in order of time And this is clear in the perpetuall analogy of holy Scripture For Baptism is never propounded mentioned or enjoyn'd as a meanes of remission of sinnes or of eternall life but something of duty choyce and sanctity is joyn'd with it in order to production of the end so mentioned Know ye not that as many Rom. 6. 3. as are baptized into Christ Jesus are baptized into his death There is the mystery and the Symbol together and declared to bee perpetually united 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All of us who were baptized into one were baptized into the other Not only into the Name of Christ but into his death also But the meaning of this as it is explained in the following words of S. Paul makes much for our purpose For to bee baptized into his death signifies to be buried with him in Baptism that as Christ rose from the dead wee also should walk in newnesse of life That 's Vers. 4. the full mystery of Baptism For being baptized into his death or which is all one in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the likenesse of his death cannot goe alone if we be so planted Vers. 5. into Christ we shall be partakers of his Resurrection and that is not here instanced in precise reward but in exact Duty for all this is nothing but crucifixion of the old man a destroying the Vers. 6. body of sinne that wee no longer serve sinne This indeed is truly to be baptized both in the Symbol and the Mystery Whatsoever is lesse then this is but the Symbol only a meare Ceremony an opus operatum a dead letter an empty shadow an instrument without an agent to manage or force to actuate it Plainer yet Whosoever are baptized into Christ have put on Christ have put on the new man But to put on this new man is to be formed in righteousnesse and holinesse and truth This whole Argument is the very words of S. Paul The Major proposition is dogmatically determin'd Gal. 3. 27. The Minor in Ephes. 4. 24. The Conclusion then is obvious that they who are not formed new in righteousnesse and holinesse and truth they who remaining in the present incapacites cannot walk in newnesse of life they have not been baptized into Christ and then they have but one member of the distinction used by S. Peter they have that Baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh but they have not that Baptism which is the answer of a 1 Pet. 3. 21. good conscience towards God which is the onely Baptism that saves us And this is the case of children And then the case is thus As Infants by the force of nature cannot put themselves into a supernaturall condition and therefore say the Paedo-baptists they need Baptism to put them into it so if they be baptized before the use of reason before the works of the Spirit before the operations of Grace before they can throw off the works of darknesse and live in righteousnesse and newnesse of life they are never the nearer From the paines of Hell they shall be saved by the mercies of God and their own innocence though they die in puris naturalibus and Baptism will carry them no further For that Baptism that saves us is not the only washing with water of which only Children are capable but the answer of a good conscience towards God of which they are not capable till the use of reason till they know to chuse the good and refuse the evill And from thence I consider anew That all vowes made by persons under others Names stipulations made by Minors are not valid till they by a supervening act after they are of sufficient age doe ratifie them Why then may not Infants as well make the vow de novo as de novo ratifie that which was made for them ab antiquo when they come to years of choice If the Infant vow be invalid till the Manly confirmation why were it Vide Erasmum in praefat ad Annotat in Matth. not as good they staid to make it till that time before which if they
alike necessary or alike indifferent if the former why does no Church observe them if the later why does the Church of Rome charge upon others the shame of novelty for leaving of some Rites and Ceremonies which by her own practice we are taught to have no obligation in them but to be adiaphorous S. Paul gave order that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife The Church of Rome will not allow so much other Churches allow more The Apostles commanded Christians to Fast on Wednesday and Friday as appeares in their Canons The Church of Rome Fasts Friday and Saturday and not on Wednesday The Apostles had their Agapae or love Feasts we should believe them scandalous They used a kisse of charity in ordinary addresses the Church of Rome keeps it only in their Masse other Churches quite omit it The Apostles permitted Priests and Deacons to live in conjugall Society as appears in the 5. Can. of the Apostles which to them is an Argument who believe them such and yet the Church of Rome by no meanes will endure it nay more Michael Medina gives Testimony that of 84 Canons Apostolicall which Clemens collected De sacr hom continent li 5. c. 105. scarce six or eight are observed by the Latine Church and Peresius gives this account of it In illis contineri multa quae temporum corruptione non plenè observantur aliis pro temporis De Tradit part 3. c. de Author Can. Apost materiae qualitate aut obliteratis aut totius Ecclesiae magisterio abrogatis Now it were good that they which take a liberty to themselves should also allow the same to others So that for one thing or other all Traditions excepting those very few that are absolutely universall will lose all their obligation and become no competent medium to confine mens practises or limit their faiths or determine their perswasions Either for the difficulty of their being prov'd the incompetency of the testimony that transmits them or the indifferency of the thing transmitted all Traditions both rituall and doctrinall are disabled from determining our consciences either to a necessary believing or obeying 6. To which I adde by way of confirmation that there are some things called Traditions and are offered to be proved to Numb 9. us by a Testimony which is either false or not extant Clemens of Alexandria pretended it a Tradition that the Apostles preached to them that dyed in infidelity even after their death and then raised them to life but he proved it only by the Testimony of the Book of Hermes he affirmed it to be a Tradition Apostolicall that the Greeks were saved by their Philosophy but he had no other Authority for it but the Apocryphall Books of Peter and Paul Tertullian and S. Basil pretend it an Apostolicall Tradition to sign in the aire with the sign of the Crosse but this was only consign'd to them in the Gospel of Nicodemus But to instance once for all in the Epistle of Marcellus to the Bishop of Antioch where he affirmes that it is the Canon of the Apostles praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis non posse Conciliae celebrari And yet there is no such Canon extant nor ever was for ought appears in any Record we have and yet the Collection of the Canons is so intire that though it hath something more then what was Apostolicall yet it hath nothing lesse And now that I am casually fallen upon an instance from the Canons of the Apostles I consider that there cannot in the world a greater instance be given how easy it is to be abused in the believing of Traditions For 1. to the first 50. which many did admit for Apostolicall 35 more were added which most men now count spurious all men call dubious and some of them universally condemned by peremptory sentence even by them who are greatest admirers of that Collection as 65. 67. and 8 ⅘ Canons For the first 50 it is evident that there are some things so mixt with them and no mark of difference left that the credit of all is much impared insomuch that Isidor of Sevill sayes they were Apoeryphall made by Hereticks and published under the Apud Gratian. dist 16. c. Canones title Apostolicall but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them And yet they have prevail'd so farre amongst some that Damascen is of opinion they should Lib. ◠c. 18 de Orthod fide be received equally with the Canonicall writings of the Apostles One thing only I observe and we shall find it true in most writings whose Authority is urged in Questions of Theology that the Authority of the Tradition is not it which moves the assent but the nature of the thing and because such a Canon is delivered they doe not therefore believe the sanction or proposition so delivered but disbelieve the Tradition if they doe not like the matter and so doe not judge of the matter by the Tradition but of the Tradition by the matter And thus the Church of Rome rejects the 84 or 85 Canon of the Apostles not because it is delivered with lesse Authority then the last 35 are but because it reckons the Canon of Scripture otherwise then it is at Rome Thus also the fifth Canon amongst the first 50 because it approves the marriage of Priests and Deacons does not perswade them to approve of it too but it selfe becomes suspected for approving it So that either they accuse themselves of palpable contempt of the Apostolicall Authority or else that the reputation of such Traditions is kept up to serve their own ends and therefore when they encounter them they are more to be upheld which what else is it but to teach all the world to contemn such pretences and undervalue Traditions and to supply to others a reason why they should doe that which to them that give the occasion is most unreasonable 7. The Testimony of the Ancient Church being the only Numb 10. meanes of proving Tradition and sometimes their dictates and doctrine being the Tradition pretended of necessity to be imitated it is considerable that men in their estimate of it take their rise from severall Ages and differing Testimonies and are not agreed about the competency of their Testimony and the reasons that on each side make them differ are such as make the Authority it selfe the lesse authentick and more repudiable Some will allow only of the three first Ages as being most pure most persecuted and therefore most holy least interested serving fewer designs having fewest factions and therefore more likely to speak the truth for Gods sake and its own as best complying with their great end of acquiring Heaven in recompence of losing their lives Others * Vid. Card. Petron. lettre an Sieur Casaubon say that those Ages being persecuted minded the present Doctrines proportionable to their purposes and constitution of the Ages and make little or nothing of those Questions which
us then the Mosaicall precepts of putting Adulterers to death and trying the accused persons by the waters of jealousie And thus in these two Instances I have given account what Numb 20. is to be done in Toleration of diversity of opinions The result of which is principally this Let the Prince and the Secular Power have a care the Common-wealth be safe For whether such or such a Sect of Christians be to be permitted is a question rather Politicall then Religious for as for the concernments of Religion these instances have furnished us with sufficient to determine us in our duties as to that particular and by one of these all particulars may be judged And now it were a strange inhumanity to permit Jewes in Numb 21. a Common-wealth whose interest is served by their inhabitation and yet upon equall grounds of State and Policy not to permit differing Sects of Christians For although possibly there is more danger mens perswasions should be altered in a commixture of divers Sects of Christians yet there is not so much danger when they are changed from Christian to Christian as if they be turn'd from Christian to Iew as many are daily in Spaine and Portugall And this is not to be excused by saying the Church hath no Numb 22. power over them qui foris sunt as Iewes are For it is true the Church in the capacity of Spirituall regiments hath nothing to doe with them because they are not her Diocesse Yet the Prince hath to doe with them when they are subjects of his regiment They may not be Excommunicate any more then a stone may be kild because they are not of the Christian Communion but they are living persons parts of the Common-Wealth infinitely deceived in their Religion and very dangerous if they offer to perswade men to their opinions and are the greatest enemies of Christ whose honour and the interest of whose Service a Christian Prince is bound with all his power to maintaine And when the Question is of punishing disagreeing persons with death the Church hath equally nothing to doe with them both for she hath nothing to doe with the temporall sword but the Prince whose Subjects equally Christians and Iewes are hath equall power over their persons for a Christian is no more a subject then a Iew is The Prince hath upon them both the same power of life and death so that the Iew by being no Christian is not foris or any more an exempt person for his body or his life then the Christian is And yet in all Churches where the secular power hath temporall reason to tolerate the Iewes they are tolerated without any scruple in Religion which thing is of more consideration because the Iewes are direct Blasphemers of the Sonne of God and Blasphemy by their own Law the Law of Moses is made capitall And might with greater reason be inflicted upon them who acknowledge its obligation then urg'd upon Christians as an Authority enabling Princes to put them to death who are accused of accidentall and consequutive Blasphemy and Idolatry respectively which yet they hate and disavow with much zeale and heartinesse of perswasion And I cannot yet learn a reason why we shall not be more complying with them who are of the houshold of Faith for at least they are children though they be but rebellious children and if they were not what hath the Mother to doe with them any more then with the Iewes they are in some relation or habitude of the Family for they are consigned with the same Baptism professe the same Faith delivered by the Apostles are erected in the same hope and look for the same glory to be reaveled to them at the comming of their Common Lord and Saviour to whose Service according to their understanding they have vowed themselves And if the disagreeing persons be to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans yet not worse Have no company with them that 's the worst that is to be done to such a man in S. Pauls judgement Yet count him not as an enemy but admonish him as a brother SECT XXI Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion FRom these premises we are easily instructed concerning the lawfulnesse or duty respectively of Christian Communion Numb 1. which is differently to bee considered in respect of particular Churches to each other and of particular men to particular Churches For as for particular Churches they are bound to allow Communion to all those that professe the same Faith upon which the Apostles did give Communion For whatsoever preserves us as Members of the Church gives us title to the Communion of Saints and whatsoever Faith or beliefe that is to which God hath promised Heaven that Faith makes us Members of the Catholick Church Since therefore the Iudiciall Acts of the Church are then most prudent and religious when they nearest imitate the example and piety of God To make the way to Heaven straighter then God made it or to deny to communicate with those whom God will vouchsase to be united and to refuse our charity to those who have the same Faith because they have not all our opinions and believe not every thing necessary which we over-value is impious and Schismaticall it inferres Tyranny on one part and perswades and tempts to uncharitablenesse and animosities on both It dissolves Societies and is an enemy to peace it busies men in impertinent wranglings and by names of men and titles of factions it consignes the interessed parties to act their differences to the height and makes them neglect those advantages which piety and a goodlife bring to the reputation of Christian Religion and Societies And therefore Vincentius Lirinensis and indeed the whole Numb 2. Church accounted the Donatists Hereticks upon this very ground Cap. 11. Vid. Pacian Epist. ad Sempron 2. because they did imperiously deny their Communion to all that were not of their perswasion whereas the Authors of that opinion for which they first did separate and make a Sect because they did not break the Churches peace nor magisterially prescib d to others were in that disagrecing and errour accounted Catholicks Divisio enim disunio facit vos haereticos pax unit as L. 2. c. 95. contra liter Petilian faciunt Catholicos said S. Austin and to this sense is that of S. Paul If I had all faith and had not charity I am nothing He who upon confidence of his true beliefe denies a charitable Communion to his brother loses the reward of both And if Pope Victor had been as charitable to the Asiaticks as Pope Anicetus and S. Polycarp were to each other in the same disagreeing concerning Easter Victor had not been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so bitterly reprov'd and condemn'd as he was for the uncharitable managing of his disagreeing by Polycrates and Euseb. l. 5. c. 25 26. Irenaeus Concordia enim quae est charitat is effectus est unio
Spirituall because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in it's particular capacity for such things only are properly spirituall 5. The Bishops jurisdiction hath a compulsory deriv'd from Christ only viz. infliction of censures by excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it But yet this internall compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God and their favour to the Church is assisted by thesecular arme either superadding a temporall penalty in case of contumacy or some other way abetting the censures of the Church and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then Episcopall Iurisdiction hath a double part an externall and an internall this is deriv'd from Christ that from the King which because it is concurrent in all acts of Iurisdiction therefore it is that the King is supreme of the Iurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the externall compulsory * And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperour or his Prefect or any man of consular dignity sit Iudge when the Question is of Faith not that the Prefect was to Iudge of that or that the Bishops were not But in case of the pervicacy of a peevish heretick who would not submitt to the power of the Church but flew to the secular power for assistance hoping by taking sanctuary there to ingage the favour of the Prince In this case the Bishops also appealed thither not for resolution but assistance and sustentation of the Church's power * It was so in the case of Aëtius the Arian Honoratus the Prefect Constantius being Emperour For all that the Prefect did or the Emperour in this case Tripart hist. lib. 5. c. 35. was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties and to incourage the Catholikes but the precise act of Iudicature even in this case was in the Bishops for they deposed Aëtius for his heresie for all his confident appeale and Macedonius Eleusius Basilius Ortasius and Dracontius for personall delinquencyes * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution and assertion of S. Ambrose who refus'd to be tryed in a cause of faith by Lay-Iudges though Delegates of the Emperour Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator S. Ambros. Epist lib. 2. Epist. 13. in causâ fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse When was it ever knowne that Lay-men in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop To be sure it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect for if they had appealed to him or to his Master Constantius for judgment of the Article and not for incouragement and secular assistance S. Ambrose his confident Question of Quando audisti had quickly been answered even with saying presently after the Councell of Ariminum in the case of Aëtius and Honoratus * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Councell of Aquileia because he refused to answer except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity And it is observeable that the Arians were the first and indeed they offer'd at it often that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith for they despayring of their cause in a Conciliary triall hoped to ingage the Emperour on their party by making him Umpire But the Catholike Bishops made humble and faire remonstrance of the distinction of powers and Iurisdictions and as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the incroachment of an exteriour jurisdiction and power It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia In verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man so famous and exemplary that he was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperour did preside amongst the Bishops and undertooke to determine causes of meere spirituall cognisance insteed of a Placet he gave this answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder that thou being set over things of a different nature medlest with those things that only appertaine to Bishops The MILITIA and the POLITIA are thine but matters of FAITH and SPIRIT are of EPISCOPALL cognisance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the freedome of the ingenuous Leontius Answerable to which was that Christian and faire acknowledgement of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their legate to desire him ut dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse that he would be pleas'd to mend the Article Respondens Valentinianus ait Mihi quidem quum vnus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari Verùm Sacerdotes apud se ipsos congregentur vbi voluerint Cumque haet respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi So Sozomen reports the story The Emperour would not meddle with matters of faith but hist. tripart lib. 7. c. 12. referred the deliberation and decision of them to the Bishops to whom by God's law they did appertaine Upon which intimation given the Bishops conven'd in Lampsacum And thus a double power met in the Bishops A divine right to decide the article Mihi fas non est saith the Emperour it is not lawfull for me to meddle And then a right from the Emperour to assemble for he gave them leave to call a Councell These are two distinct powers One from Christ the other from the Prince *** And now upon this occasion I have faire opportunity to insert a consideration The Bishops have power over all causes emergent in their diocesses all I meane in the sense above explicated they have power to inflict censures excommunication is the highest the rest are parts of it and in order to it Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognisance of or may not the secular power find out some externall compulsory instead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certaine cases 1. To this I answer that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may or such in which they must use excommunication then in these cases no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away 2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory For if the Church be not capable of a jus gladij as most certainly shee is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser paines in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I meane in the formality of a Church-tribunall then they give the Church what shee must not cannot take I deny not but Clergy men are as capable of the power of life and death as any men but not in the formality of Clergy-men A
Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiasticall tribunall and then if any man or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents in some cases in which shee might lawfully inflict them and pretend to give her another compulsory they take away the Church-consistory and erect a very secular Court dependant on themselves and by consequence to be appeal'd to from themselves and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power is traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat he betrayes the individuall and inseparable right of holy Church For her censures shee may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security The other is beg'd or borrow'd none of her owne nor of a fit edge to be us'd in her abscissions and coërcions * I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of Can. 39. so frequent use in this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affaires of the Church and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocesse The next Consideration concerning the Bishop's jurisdiction is of what persons he is Iudge And because our Scene lyes herein Church-practice I shall only set downe the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affaire and leave it under that representation Presbyters and Deacons and inferiour Clerks and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons No man there was exempted of whose soule any Bishop had charge And all Christs sheepe heare his voice and the call of his sheap-heard-Ministers * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperour for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Millayne the Emperour wished them to be carefull in the choice of a Bishop in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 5. Set such an one in the Archiepiscopall throne that we who rule the Kingdome may sincerely submitt our head unto him viz in matters of spirituall import * And since all power is deriv'd from Christ who is a King and a Priest and a Prophet Christian Kings are Christi Domini and Vicars in his Regall power but Bishops in his Sacerdotall and Propheticall * So that the King hath a Supreme Regall power in causes of the Church ever since his Kingdome became Christian and it consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment and cure of soules and in these also all the externall compulsory and jurisdiction in his owne For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects himselfe also upon the same termes becomes a Christian Ruler and in both capacities he is to rule viz both as Subjects and as Christian Subjects except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotall authority And therefore the Kingdome and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their severall capacities For superiority is usually expressed in three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excellency Impery and Power The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery The Bishop hath an Excellency viz. of Spirituall Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in severall capacity the King in potentiâ gladii the Bishop in potestate clavium The Sword and the Keyes are the emblems of their distinct power Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophet â gloriosius Pontifice clarius Rege sublimius King and Priest and Prophet are in their severall excellencies the Highest powers under heaven *** In this sense it is easy to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacrednesse of Royall prerogatives were not both the piety and sense of the Church sufficiently cleare in the issues of her humblest obedience * And this is the sense of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and Epist. ad Philadelph disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopopareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himselfe obey the Bishop * This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis Lib. de dignit Sacerd cap. 2. nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati erit inferius c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine that most blessed Prince Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur Vos autem non potest is ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and incausis simplicis religionis So that good Emperour in his oration to Lib. 10. Eccles hist. c. 2. the Nicene Fathers It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocesse to the Arians His answer was that Palaces belong'd to the Emperour but Churches to the Bishop and so they did by all the lawes of Christendome The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperour exactly the same per omniae as it is related by Ruffinus * S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperour Lib. 10. Eccles hist. cap. 19. to desire him to goe forth of the Cancelli in his Church at Millain showes that then the powers were so distinct that they made no intrenchment upon each other * It was no greater power but a more considerable act and higher exercise the forbidding the communion to Theodosius till he had Theodor. lib. 5 c. 18. by repentance washed out the bloud that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica It was a wonderfull concurrence of piety in the Emperour and resolution and authority in the Bishop But he was not the first that did it For Philip the Emperour was also guided by the Pastorall rod and the severity of the Bishop De hoc traditum est nobis Euseb lib. 6. cap. 25. quod Christianus fuerit in die Paschae i. e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluerit communicare mysteriis ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum nisi confiteretur peccata inter poenitentes staret nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam culpas quae de eo ferebantur plurimae deluisset The Bishop of the place would not