after he saith In this Kingdom there were Officers of the Realm rege superiores I say saith he in this Kingdom which was established and ordained not by Plato or Aristotle but by God himself the supreme founder of all Monarchy 4. And it is very manifest The pretended power of the Sanhedrin that the greater part of the Jewish Rabbinical Writers and from them divers Christians some of them so judicious that it is strange they should be so much imposed upon by Fables and Romances do assert that the Sanhedrim or Senate of seventy one persons had such a power over the Kings of Judah as to call them to account and punish them And they also assert that according to the original establishment of the Jewish laws and polity the chief causes of moment both of an Ecclesiastical and civil nature were exempt from the Kings jurisdiction and reserved to the Synedrial cognisance Grot. Schick ubi supra To this purpose Grotius declareth aliqua judicia arbitror regibus adempta I think there were some cases of judgment reserved from the King which remained in the Sanhedrim of seventy men i. e. besides the Nasi or president Schickard goes farther and sayes sine senatus magni assensu Rex in gravioribus causis nihil poterat decernere that the King could determine nothing in the more weighty matters without the assent of this great Senate And our Author de Synedriis De Synedr l. 3. c. 9. n. 1. among other things discourses de Judiciis adeo Synedrio magno propriis ut nec à Regibus aut impediri aut ad tribunal suum vocari jure potuerunt in which words he fetters and confines the Kings power but that of the Sanhedrim is set at large 5. Carpzov in Schick c. 2. p. 142. But it may be a sufficient prejudice against these positions that they have no better a foundation than a tradition delivered by some of the Jewish Rabbins This a fabulous tradition of the Rabbins against the evidence of whose testimony in this particular there lie these exceptions 1. That none of those persons who assert this Synedrial power were contemporary with the flourishing of royal authority before the captivity but all of them lived near or fully a thousand years and many of them above fifteen hundred years after that time and therefore can give no testimony upon their own knowledge and writing one from another with a zeal for all traditions any of their wise men have delivered the number of them who are produced can add nothing to their testimony But both divine and humane writers who are of an ancienter date do sufficiently contradict this position as I hope to make plain He therefore who can believe that the Apostolical form of Church Government was by Lay-elders because divers of late but neither Scripture nor ancient Writers do assert it and he who can perswade himself that our Saviour made the Bishop of Rome the Vniversal Monarch of the whole World and gave him a plenitude of all temporal and spiritual power because many Writers of that Communion do now assert this while what is inconsistent therewith was declared by Christ his Apostles and the ancient Christian Church such men have understandings of a fit fize and sutable disposition to receive these Rabbinical traditions concerning the Synedrial authority and Supremacy which are also things fit for their purpose 6. Gemar Sanhed Cocc c. 2. Sect. 10. Secondly It is evident that the Rabbins out of affection to their own Nation were forward to extol it even beyond the bounds of truth of which that prodigious instance may be given in the Talmud of the number of the Horses for Salomons own Stables which are there brought up to an hundred and sixty millions accounting a thousand thousand to a Million Now the great Sanhedrim was the chief Jewish consistory for a considerable time Sed. Olam zut in fin before the reign of Aristobulus and under the Roman Government and some continuance thereof remained towards five hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem as their Chronicle informs us which was till about the time of some of those Rabbinical Writers And it is very probable that the pressures and sufferings which the Jews sustained under the Roman Emperours or Kings might prejudice them against Monarchical Government 7. Thirdly There are other Rabbinical and Talmudical Writers of good note who will by no means be perswaded to embrace this tradition which disparageth the Royal power Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 4. p. 666. De Synedr l. 3. c. 9. n. 3. Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 3. n. 20. To this purpose the words of the Jerusalem Gemara and of R. Jeremias mentioned in Dabarim Rabba and others are cited by Mr Selden and the testimony of Barnachmoni by Grotius who assert that no mortal man hath any power of judging the King And that the highest authority is in the King who standeth in Gods place is asserted by R. Abarbanel Carpzov in Schick p. 165. Their pretended power over the person of the King refuted whose words are in Carpzov 8. But because a due examination of these pretences may be of good use I shall first particularly reflect upon that strange power which these Writers give to the Sanhedrim over the person of the King They deal with the royal authority as the Jews did with our Saviour who gave him the title of the King of the Jews but yet scourged him and treated him with great indignity For these Writers do assert that the King might be scourged by the Sanhedrim only by the great Sanhedrim at Jernsalem saith Schickard De Jur. Reg. c. 2. Theor. 7. and he acknowledgeth that even this appeared to him valde paradoxum a thing far from truth and very unlikely until his own apprehensions were moulded into a complyance with the Jewish Writers But Mr Selden addeth De Syn. l. 2. c. 9. n. 5. that according to the testimony of the Rabbins he might be scourged by the lesser Sanhedrim of twenty three which was the Government of every particular City And among the 168. Cases punished by scourging enumerated by Maimonides Ibid. c. 13. n. 8. and mentioned from him by Selden the three last are if the King multiply Wives if he multiply Horses and if he multiply silver and gold Now these things are so strange in themselves reducing the King to the same circumstances with every common and petty offender that how this can consist with the majesty and soveraignty of a Prince is utterly unconceiveable and he who can entertain such dreams and fancies must also perswade himself to believe against the plainest evidence that David and those who sat upon his throne were not Kings and chief rulers in the Kingdom of Israel and Judah but were all of them subjects under the common and ordinary government and authority of that Common-wealth 9. Schickard de Jur.
are still under the Government of their Superiours who may take care that they therein act not contrary to the true grounds of Conscience which in this Case is justice and right 2. That in matters of Religion also it is manifest that very many are prone to run into mistakes more than about other things and to be too much hurried by pride prejudice passion or by following erroneous guides And is it reasonable to think it agreeable to the will of God and the Christian Doctrine that it should be necessary to preserve the civil interests of men whether Princes or Subjects but that such liberty must be granted that the sacred Majesty of God may be affronted the truths of the Gospel opposed the Unity of the Church broken by Schism the power of Religion undermined by vain fancies and the reputation of the Christian Religion stained and the eternal happiness of many thousands be thereby hazarded and all this not thought so considerable as to provide against it Or as S. Austin said Aug. Ep. 50. An fidem non servare levius est animam Deo quà m foeminam viro is it a lighter and more inconsiderable thing for the soul of man not to be faithful to God than for a Woman not to be faithful to her Husband Wherefore since it is as easy for men of understanding to discern the duty of man in the main things of Religion and the Rules of decency as in civil matters it is very requisite that with allowance of reasonable liberty to them who are soberly inquisitive about truth there should be a restraint upon men by Laws and Government from following every inordinate inclination of their own minds though they miscal it by the name of Conscience that so Piety Order and Peace may be secured 4. But though I would be as charitable to all who err in matters of Religion as may consist with a due consideration of things yet I cannot account all that to be Conscience which is by some men in the World so called Conscience doth not always really guide where its name is pretended For those proper dictates of Conscience which in this case ought to command obedience must proceed upon such convictive evidence of truth and duty which no errour and mistake can bring along with it with that clearness which truth doth and this ought to be followed by every pious man whatever difficulties may assault him herein but passions and disordered affections ought to be governed and restrained and the Laws and Commands of Superiours ought to be obeyed where there is no such evidence to be opposed against them as I have mentioned But let any person who understandeth the state of the World consider whether it be not an apparent sad truth and matter of real lamentation that the chief and most earnest men who close with erring and dividing parties amongst us do this either out of some fond affection to a weak argument which they are highly pleased with or because they are resolved to hold fast some things as certain principles which have no evidence of truth or that they follow willingly and of choice the opinion of some other persons whom they admire or have a great prejudice against those whom they account an opposite party or are not willing to be subject and to be guided by their Superiours in things relating to order And I heartily wish it were not so plain a truth as it is that such men are rarely willing to consider seriously and impartially of what is said against their errour and do not make so much scruple of Conscience as they ought of breaking those numerous and plain Precepts which enjoin obedience humility and the keeping the Peace and Vnity of the Church 5. Now in men who thus proceed True liberty of Conscience opposed by them who plead for it in words it is very plain that their dissent is founded in the voluntary inclination and evil indisposition of their wills And if any such persons shall say that their Consciences oblige them to entertain these inclinations they must give others leave to see that they only substitute the name of Conscience to be a Plea for an unaccountable and bad temper of mind And indeed those persons are great opposers of the just and necessary Liberty of Conscience who will bind it up to comply with their own inclinations and what pleaseth them but will not give it the liberty of impartial consideration that thereby it might guide them by its unbiassed dictates 6. God hath not left mens Consciences at liberty to neglect peace and obedience But because I intend here to discourse no further of liberty of Conscience than to shew that the pretence thereof ought not to be any bar against the exercise of government and authority in the regular establishing of Religion and order in the Church I shall only add that I suppose no man will be so presumptuously bold as to assert that this Plea of liberty should be a priviledge to men against the authority of God and his Laws and Precepts And then I cannot understand what pretence can be made from hence against the necessity of practising those duties which the Commands of God have enjoined of following peace maintaining order and in things lawful being subject to superiours especially since God hath particularly in this Case required us to be subject for Conscience sake and that not as in a matter left at liberty but where he hath declared a necessity upon Conscience Rom. 13.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you most needs be subject for Conscience sake 7. But there are some who say Toleration pretended to be a method for peace that a general liberty for all men to profess what they please or think fit in Religion if it be not necessary from the nature of Conscience yet is the most excellent expedient for the general peace of the World This liberty hath been pretended by them who engage in several Sects to be a principal means to promote the Vnity of the Church which must be by a like method as the compactness and united strength of a building may be procured by providing that all the parts of it may without difficulty fall from one another But this general liberty in Religion is also proposed Humane Reason p. 78. as the best requisite to hinder civil and foreign Wars by a late Writer He tells us that all Wars of late Ages have been either really for Religion or at least that hath been one of the chief pretences and therefore as conducing to peace he requires the imbracing this Position P. 79. That every man ought quietly to enjoy his own Religion And in another place he sayes there cannot certainly in the World be found out P. 11 12. so mild and so peaceable a doctrine as that which permits a difference in beliefs 8. But since he that observes the World must acknowledge that many Wars have been occasioned upon
Conspiracies have been frequently contrived against the Safety and Welfare of Princes and their Kingdoms as the consequent of the wicked Positions which I have undertaken to refute But all these attempts which are Pernicious and Destructive to Humane Society will I hope sufficiently appear by the following Discourse to be perfectly opposite to the Christian Doctrine also and severely condemned by it Wherefore the things treated of in this Book are of such a nature that they are of great concernment for the good Order Peace and Settlement of the World the security of Kings and Kingdoms and the vindicating the Innocency of the Christian Religion Upon this Account I could wish my self to be more able to discourse of such a subject as this every way suitably to and worthy of it self But as I have herein used diligent care and consideration so I can freely say I have every where endeavoured impartially to discover and faithfully to express the truth and have never used any unworthy Artifices to evade or obscure it And therefore if the sober and judicious Reader shall in any thing of less moment as I hope he will not in matters of great moment discern any mistake I shall presume upon his Candor and Charity In the manner of handling things I have avoided nothing which I apprehended to be a difficulty or considerable matter of objection but in the return of Answers and the use of Arguments to confirm what I assert I have oft purposely omitted many things in themselves not inconsiderable for the shunning needless prolixity and have waved several things taken notice of by others for this cause sometimes because I was not willing to lay any stress upon such things as seemed to me not to be of sufficient strength On this account for instance in discoursing of the Supremacy of Princes over Ecclesiastical Officers I did not insist on our Saviour and S. Peter paying Tribute Mat. 17.24 27. For though many ancient Writers speak of this as paid to Caesar and some expressions in the Evangelist seem to favour this sense yet I suppose there is rather greater likelyhood that this had respect to the annual oblation unto God himself which the Jews paid for the service of the Temple to which St Hilary and some other Ancients refer it Yet in rendring unto Caesar the things that are Caesars I still reserve unto God the things that are Gods acknowledging the primary necessity of embracing the true Worship of God and the Doctrine and practice of Christianity and that all Christians ought to bear an high reverence to the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ under the Gospel and to that Authority and those Officers which he hath peculiarly established therein But there is a very great miscarriage among men that there are those who look upon many weighty things in Christianity as if they were merely secular Constitutions and were no further necessary to be observed than for the securing men from outward penalties These men do not observe and consider that there lyeth a far greater necessity of keeping and valuing the Communion of the Church of devoutly attending Gods publick worship and orderly performing its Offices with other things of like nature from the Precepts and Institutions of Christ and from the Divine Sanctions than from the countenance or establishment of any civil Law or secular Authority whatsoever The lively sense and consideration of this was that which so wonderfully promoted and preserved both Piety and Unity in the Primitive Church when it had no encouragement from the Temporal Power But there must be no opposition made between Fearing God and Honouring the King but a careful discharge of both and these Precepts which God hath joined together let no man separate And now I shall only entreat that Reader who is inclined to have different apprehensions from the main things I assert to be so just to his own reason and Conscience as impartially to consider and embrace the evidence of Truth which is the more necessary because truths of this nature are no mere matters of speculation but are such Rules to direct our practice which they who are unwilling to entertain act neither charitably to themselves nor accountably to God And he who is the Father of Spirits direct the hearts of all men into the wayes of Goodness Uprightness Truth and Peace Lyn Regis June 21. 1678. THE CONTENTS THE First BOOK Chap. I. THE Kings Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical declared Sect. 1. The Royal Supremacy acknowledged and asserted in the Church and Realm of England Sect. 2. The true meaning of Supremacy of Government enquired into with particular respect to Causes Ecclesiastical Sect. 3. The Declaration of this sense by publick Authority observed Sect. 4. The spiritual Authority of the Ecclesiastical Officers is of a distinct nature from the Secular power and is no way prejudicial to Royal Supremacy Sect. 5. A particular account of this Supremacy in some chief matters Ecclesiastical with some notice of the opposition which is made thereunto Chap. II. The Supremacy of Kings in matters Ecclesiastical under the Old Testament considered Sect. 1. Their supreme Authority over things and persons sacred manifested Sect. 2. The various Pleas against Christian Kings having the same Authority about Religion which was rightly exercised under the Old Testament refuted Chap. III. No Synedrial Power among the Jews was superiour or equal to the Regal Sect. 1. The Exorbitant Power claimed to the Jewish Sanhedrim reflected on with a refutation of its pretended superiority over the King himself Sect. 2. The determination of many weighty Cases claimed to the Sanhedrim as exempt from the Royal Power examined and refuted Sect. 3. Of the Antiquity of the Synedrial Power among the Jews with reflexions upon the pretences for a distinct supreme Ecclesiastical Senate Chap. IV. Royal Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical proved from reason and the Doctrine of Christ Sect. 1. The evidence hereof from the nature of Soveraign Power Sect. 2. The same established by the Christian Doctrine Sect. 3. What Authority such Princes have in matters Ecclesiastical who are not members of the Church Sect. 4. An enquiry into the time of the Baptism of Constantine the Great with respect to the fuller clearing this matter Chap. V. An Account of the sense of the ancient Christian Church concerning the Authority of Emperours and Princes in matters of Religion Sect. 1. Of the General Exercise of this Supremacy and its being allowed by the Fathers of the first General Council of Nice Sect. 2. This Supremacy owned in the second General Council at Constantinople and the third at Ephesus Sect. 3. The same acknowledged in the Council of Chalcedon and others Sect. 4. Some Objections concerning the Case of Arius and Arianism considered Sect. 5. Other Objections from the Fathers concerning the eminency of Ecclesiastical Officers and their Authority Sect. 6. The Canons of the Church concerning the exemption of the Causes of the Clergy from secular cognisance
matter may have recourse besides other cases to the voluntary Wars of Amaziah against Joash 2 Chr. 25.17 18 19 20. and of Josiah against Pharaoh Nechoh 2 Chr. 35.20 21 22. Where as those Wars are related to be undertaken by the choice of these two Kings of Judah so the Kings against whom they Warred sent Embassies for Peace not to any Sanhedrim but to them To this I add that if this notion had any thing of truth in it it might possibly be emproved far toward the justifying the rebellion of Absalom Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 5. Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 15. n. 4. Schic de Jur. R. c. 1. Th. 2. against his own Father For if the power of War was in this Court it is altogether unlikely that David in his sudden flight from his Royal City should have them with him but it is much more likely if there was then any such Court it did remain with Absalom in Jerusalem where only that Court could regularly fit according to the Jewish Canons especially if that be admitted for truth Ch. Par. in Ps 140. v. 10. which is declared by the Chaldee Paraphrast that Ahitophel the chief Conspirator was the head of the Sanhedrim 14. Inferiour Courts Sanh ubi sup Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 1. n. 1. Quinq in Chal. Par. in Thren c. 5. v. 14. The right of appointing inferiour Courts of Judicature among the Tribes of Israel is claimed also as peculiar to this Sanhedrim And that the Judges of inferiour Courts must be made Rabbies and receive imposition of hands from this great Court is declared by Quinquarboreus But as we have undeniable evidence that in the military Government divers Captains and Generals were appointed by David and Benajah by Solomon so also David established 2700. Levites to be rulers over the two Tribes and half 1 Chr. 26.32 And as the holy Scriptures gives us an account of the Officers and Judges in his time over the other Tribes Antiq. Jud. l. 7. c. 11. Josephus informs us that six thousand of the Levites were made Judges by David And if Judges in the Land had not usually been established by the King there had been no colour for that plausible pretence of Absalom against his Father by telling the men of Israel their matters were good and right but there was no man deputed of the King to hear them 2 Sam. 15.3 Nor can any thing be more clear than that Jehosaphat set judges in the land throughout all the Cities of Judah City by City 2 Chr. 19.5 and also a chief court in Jerusalem v. 8 -11 but that this was no such Sanhedrim as the Rabbins mention I shall hereafter manifest And that the ancient Jewish Writers did acknowledge it a right of the King to appoint judges and judicatures will appear from Philo Phil. de Creat Princip who discoursing of a Prince with a special respect to the Jewish Government directs him to write the Book of the Law with his own hand and to read therein and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to chuse others who shall partake in the rule and Government that is as he expresseth it that the lesser causes he should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commit them to inferiour Rulers 15. Of making Laws Seld. de Syn. l. 3. c. 1. n. 1. Quinquarb ubi sup De Syned l. 2. c. 9. n. 7. Carpz in Schickard c. 1. Theor 2. p. 15. The authority of making any new Laws or Constitutions is also pretended to be peculiar to the Synedrial power And consequently their Kings must be denied to have any interest in the legislation since these Rabbinical Writers do generally affirm that the King might have no place in the Sanhedrim nor any share in its authority as hath been observed among others by Selden and Carpzovius But whereas the chief things reported to us concerning the Reign of the Kings of Judah consist either in their care of Religion or their military atchievements we have an instance of a standing military law or statute for dividing the Spoil which was established by David 1 Sam. 30.24 25. And I have in the former Chapter evidenced their establishing Orders in matters Ecclesiastical such were the division made by David of the Priests and Levites for their attendance on the service of God Ant. l. 7. c. 11. and others of like nature and Josephus tells us that this division was observed as long as the Temple and its worship stood Sect. 3 To which we may also adjoin the particular Laws or Constitutions made by Josiah and Nehemiah concerning some of the Priests abovementioned SECT III. Of the antiquity of the Synedrial power among the Jews with reflexions upon the pretences for a distinct supreme Ecclesiastical Senate 1. From what hath been discoursed it is sufficiently evident that whatsoever Courts of Judicature or Officers there were in Judah none of them under the Jewish Monarchy ever did vie for Soveraignty with it but were in subjection to it There was no such authority De Jur. Reg. c. 2. Th. 7. as is challenged by Schickard to the Sanhedrin who calleth it Synedrium magnum regiae majestatis compar or by Grotius Grot. in Mat. 5.22 who in the reign of the Kings owneth Senatûs authoritatem regiae velut parem in which expressions is asserted its equal or coordinate power with the Kings which Selden also allows Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 4. p 667. Yet for giving further evidence to the truth of what I have above expressed I shall assert 2. That this chief Synedrial Government among the Jews The Original of the great Sanhedrin was since the Captivity was of a later extract than the time of the captivity and had its first original since the decay of the true Royal power There was indeed all along the Mosaical dispensation an High Priest whom the Law of Moses obliged the Judge or King in arduous and weighty matters and in such only to consult and by him to ask counsel of God And they had also Elders and men of wisdom and with some of these the Laws of equity and prudence would direct the King to advise And thus much may not improbably be the sense of those words of Josephus proposing this Rule for the King Joseph Ant. l. 4. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to act without the High Priest and the consent of the Senators Yet Salmasius thinketh that these words of Josephus Defens Regia c. 2. p. 47. are suitable only to those Princes who ruled about the end of the Jewish state and unless they be taken in the sense I have mentioned they are certainly no rule either founded on the law or agreeable to the government of the House of David And indeed Josephus who saw and felt the calamities which the Jews sustained under the Roman Kings was no friend to Monarchy and though he be far from the Rabbinical strain
was baptized being against such great evidence deserves no more assent than the most fabulous stories concerning such religious reliques as do serve only to impose upon the credulous vulgar 7. But that argument which they seem to be most earnest in is that if Constantine was baptized at Nicomedia where Eusebius a chief Ringleader of the Arians was then Bishop this would cast an high aspersion upon that good Emperour who must say they then be concluded to dye in the Arian and not in the Catholick Communion Now it might be sufficient to say that by this same argument they might as well prove all the Nicene Council to be Arians as this good Emperour since they sate and no doubt received the Communion at Nice where Theognis was Bishop who was the constant Companion and Confederate with Eusebius in managing the Arian designs But I shall further add two things 1. That it might be possible that his baptism was not received from the hands of this Eusebius De Vit. Cons l. 4. c. 61 62. Eusebius Pamphilius declaring that there were divers Bishops at that time called to Nicomedia and Gelasius who was a famous Bishop of Palestine in that Century declaring that he was not baptized by an Arian but by one who embraced the Catholick faith as his words in Photius cited by Scaliger do plainly express Scalig. in Euseb Chron. p. 251. 2. That if it should be admitted that he was baptized by this Eusebius as is indeed expressed in the Chronicon of S. Hierome and in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 published by Scaliger with the Chronicon of Eusebius yet this will by no means charge him with Arianisme For 1. This Eusebius of Nicomedia had then subscribed the faith of Nice and though he and Theognis were once deposed by that Council yet upon their professed submission to the faith thereof they were again restored and received as S. Hierome acquaints us Hier. adv Lucif and the form of their submission is extant in Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 10. and Sozom. l. 2. c. 15. And though this submission of his was as Theodoret tells us Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 19. out of an ill design this is no way to be imputed to the Emperour 2. The faith of the Council of Nice was then publickly established and the Fathers at Ariminum above-mentioned do sufficiently intimate his being baptized into it 3. He then appeared a manifest friend to the Catholick Bishops who held to the Council of Nice in that at the time of his death at Nicomedia he designed to recal Athanasius from his banishment though Eusebius of Nicomedia perswaded the contrary Theod. ibid. c. 32. Athan. Apol 2. ex lit Const filii as Theodoret with whom Athanasius himself agrees doth acquaint us 4. Nicomedia was not the place he intended for his Baptism but Jordan but his sickness of which he died surprizing him here left him no liberty to choose any other place 8. I shall now only add that according to this evidence all the actions of Constantine expressed in the former Section were performed before his baptism But if any shall embrace the contrary opinion which I reject as false and groundless many of those actions will still be previous thereto And therefore this Princes authority and duty to take care of things Ecclesiastical was not the effect of his undertaking Christianity but was contained in the general authority of his imperial Soveraignty Yet I doubt not but this fiction of Constantines being baptized at Rome and the other of his Donation are two Twins being both of them the spurious and illegitimate off-spring of a luxuriant fancy impregnated by a Romancing Incubus And the large form of his Donation not that in Balsamon but in Binius Bin. Tom. 1. p. 296. expresseth the Baptism of Constantine by Silvester But this Donation is now justly rejected as a manifest forgery by their own learnedest Writers as Morinus and P. de Marca De Concord l. 3. c. 12. n. 3 5. the latter of which supposeth some of the Popes themselves about the eighth Century to be accessory to the framing and obtruding this imposture CHAP. V. B. I.C.5 An Account of the sense of the ancient Christian Church concerning the authority of Emperours and Princes in matters of Religion SECT 1. Of the general exercise of this Supremacy and of its being allowed by the Fathers of the first General Council of Nice 1. IT is acknowledged that the truths either of Christian doctrine or of natural reason do not principally depend upon the consent of men It is not to be decided by the voice of the World whether the only true God and he alone ought to be worshipped nor did it depend upon the vote of the Jewish Priesthood or Sanhedrim whether Jesus was the true Messias And upon this account the Gentile Deities were deservedly derided by Tertullian sertul Ap. cap. 5. who had no other title thereto than by the vote of the Senate nisi homini placuerit Deus non erit 2. But yet none can be expected Sect. 1 to give a better and more sure account of the doctrines and duties of Christianity than those who have been the professors and practisers of that Religion in the purer times thereof And therefore there is such a just respect and reverence due to the primitive Christian Church and the assistance of the divine grace which guided and influenced it that that which was generally received therein hath thereby a very great and considerable testimony of its being a truth especially where there are also other great arguments and evidences to evince the same And in such things it may well be allowed Dr. Hammond of Heresy Sect. 14. according to Dr Hammond among the pie credibilia that a truly general Council shall not err And even those persons who have no due regard either to antiquity or the authority of the Christian guides will manifest their great pride if they will reject and contradict the general sense of the Church unless it be upon very clear and manifest evidence to the contrary But such who pretend as the Romish Church doth a reverence and high veneration for Tradition are thereby the more concerned not to disclaim what hath been ordinarily and plainly delivered in the ancient Church 3. Now to give an account of the sense of the particular Fathers in this place would be a more long and tedious work than would be needful And indeed the minds of many of them may sufficiently be discerned by their plain expressions mentioned in several parts of this discourse Nor will I insist upon those commonly observed and very expressive sayings concerning Supremacy in general as that of Tertullian Imperatores in Dei solius potestate sunt Apol. c. 30. 33. cont Parm. l. 3. à quo sunt secundi post quem primi and majestatem Caesaris Deo soli subjicio and that of Optatus super Imperatorem
primitive practice there are two Objections which must be answered 6 Obj. 1. The ancient Christians did not want strength Many do assert that the reason why the Ancient Christians did not resist or depose their Emperours was because they wanted sufficient strength to carry on such an undertaking To this purpose speaks Card. Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 7.2 2ae qu. 12 art 2. Azor. Instit Mor. Part. 2. l. 10. c. 2. qu. 2. Bellarmine Quod Christiani olim non deposuerunt Neronem Diocletianum Julianum Apostatam similes id fuit quia vires temporales deerant Christianis And to the same purpose write Aquinas Azorius and others But if this had been a method which God had accounted fit for them to undertake he who wrought so many miracles for the propagating Christianity and enabled the Apostles and other Christians to prevail against the power of Satan in the World could have made the undertaking of a few Christians to have been successful against the power of the Empire as well as he did the Army of Gideon against the Midianites and Jonathan and his armour-bearer against the Philistines But that I may further detect the falshood of this slander invented to stain the Honour and Loyalty of the Primitive Martyrs I shall note four things 7. First I note That this suggestion doth cast an high disparagement upon the Precepts of Christianity For this must speak the Apostles to dissemble and deal hypocritically when they command obedience even for the Lords sake and forbid resisting the Power as incurring damnation and opposing the Ordinance of God if notwithstanding all this they would allow the Christians to take Armes against their Rulers whensoever they should have strength enough to carry on such an enterprize What is this but to undermine the simplicity of the Gospel and to suppose the Apostles under a disguise to pretend God and Religion where they had really no regard to them but to the carrying on a politick design and a contrivance of craftiness And upon this account Blackwells Examin Sect. 3.50 51. F. Blackwell-declared his great dislike of this suggestion on calumny And certainly it is as much against the nature of our Holy Religion to assert that the Precepts of Obedience Subjection and Meekness should be restrained to those times when they were in no capacity of doing many great actions which are contrary to these vertues as that the commands against fleshly lusts and pride did only belong to that time when Christianity was persecuted and the Professors thereof were in a low and mean estate 8. Secondly I note That this is contradictory to the Spirit and temper which the ancient Writers declare concerning the Christians of their time For besides the frequent Profession they made of their acknowledging the Governours they lived under to be constituted by God and that therefore it was their duty to be subject to them and honour them It is not possible that those Christians should forbear Resistance only for want of strength to effect it who thought it their duty to pray for those Pagan Emperours that their Life and Government might be preserved Tertul. Apol c. 30. So Tertullian declared under the persecution of Severus Precantes sumus semper pro omnibus Imperatoribus vitam illis prolixam imperium securum c. We ever pray for all Emperours their long life and the safety of their Empire And Dionysius of Alexandria Eus Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 11. gr under the persecution of Valerian and Galienus averteth that the Christians constantly prayed that their Kingdome might remain unshaken Aug. in Psal 124. And St. Austin saith that though Julian was an Apostate an Idolater and a wicked man the Christian Souldiers were subject to him their temporal Lord out of respect to their eternal Lord. 9. Thirdly I note That there is no truth in that Plea that the Christians in the Primitive Times always wanted strength For though at the first planting Christianity their numbers were small yet they did in a short time increase to great and vast multitudes Apol. c. 37. Tertullian would never have had the confidence to make so plain a profession of the strength and number of the Christians to the Roman Emperour and Senate if it had not been truth Saith he if we would act the part of open Enemies could we want Numbers or Armies we have filled your Cities Isles Castles Camps c. for what War should we be unsit though our numbers were unequal who can so readily lay down our lives if our Religion did not require us rather to dye than to draw our Swords to kill others Tertul. ad Scap. c. 2. c. 5. And among other expressions which he useth to Scapula the Governour of the African Province concerning the great multitude of Christians he tells him they were pars penè major Civitatis cujusque almost the greatest part of every City Had the numbers of Christians been small in St. Cyprian's time Cypr. ad Demetrian he would never have written to the Proconsul of Africa quamvis nimius copiosus sit populus noster that though the company of Christians were very great and numerous yet they would not revenge themselves against the unjust violence of their Persecutors 10. But if any persons should groundlessly imagine that these Christian Writers did either mistake their own numbers or were willing to represent them as more considerable than they really were for the honour of their Profession and to make them the more regarded by their Opposers There can be no such Objection against the testimony of the Emperour Maximus He was one of the fiercest enemies that Christianity ever had Naz. Orat. 3. who as Nazianzen testifyed was a greater Persecutor than either Diocletian or Maximianus and yet in his Epistle to Sabinus recorded by Eusebius he speaks it to have been a thing generally and universally known among men that in the entrance of Diocletian Eus Hist Eccl. l. 9. c. 9. gr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 almost all men had left the heathen worship and had joined themselves to the Society of the Christians And in the time of Julian Theodor. Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 1. not only the greatest part of the Empire was Christian but even of his Army also who did so profess themselves when they had chosen Jovian to succeed him upon his death 11. Fourthly I note also That it was truly observed by Barclay G. Barcl de Potest Papae c. 8. that Valentinian the younger who was an Arian might as easily have been resisted and deposed by the Catholick Christians as any King or Emperour whatsoever if they would have undertaken any such thing For the strength of the Eastern part of the Empire was then in the hands of Theodosius who was a zealous promoter of the true Faith and the main part of the Western Empire was then over-run by Maximus who continued his power
be much more dreadful and calamitious to Mankind whereas the embodying of small numbers are the less to be feared because the more easy to be suppressed 4. The next pretence is that subordinate Governours being also Gods Officers may defend the properties of the Subjects and the exercise of true Religion Brut. Vind. qu. 2. p. 56. qu. 3. p. 93. edit 1589. De sur Mag. Qu. 6. even by taking Armes against their King This hath been asserted by such Writers as Junius Brutus the Anonymous discourse de jure Magistratuum in subditos others in England in our late intestine Broils Ruth Qu. 20. 36. J. Sleid. Com. l. 22. an 1550. and Rutherford of Civil Policy And Sleidan in his Commentaries reports that the same was declared in the Magdeburgh Confession And for the supporting of this assertion it is urged that all Governours even subordinate as well as supreme are in the use of their power to serve God and do justice and defend the innocent and do act by Gods Authority As also that if any person in Ecclesiastical power how high soever he be shall oppose the Christian Doctrine his subordinate Clergy lawfully may and ought to withstand him And that saying of Trajan In Vit. Trajan mentioned by Dion Cassius is usually noted to this purpose who delivering the Sword to an inferiour Commander bad him use this for him if he should govern well but against him if he governed or commanded ill 5. Subordinaâ—t Governours may not resist the supreme But such Positions would undermine the peace of the World and lay Foundations for great disturbances and thereby the Commands of God would be broken with the greater force and violence if those who are invested with some part of the Kings Authority should account themselves thereby impowered to make use thereof against him And if this were admitted the state of Kingdoms must be in danger whensoever inferiour Governours shall be imposed upon by the subtilty of others or puffed up by ambition But this is as far from truth as from peace though Corah had 250 Princes who joynen with him and Absalom was assisted by the Elders of Israel besides Ahitophâ—l the great Counsellour of State this did not justifie their Treasonable Conspiracies And though David was a great Officer at Court General of the Army of Israel and the anointed Successour to the Crown by Gods special appointment and no subordinate Ruler in other Dominions could have so much to plead for himself in this case as David had yet it was not lawful for him to stretch out his hand against Saul And in the account of the Thebean Legion above mentioned Mauritius was a great Officer and Commander of the Roman Army and then in Arms at the head of his Legion and yet according to the Primitive Christian principles professed a detestation of making resistance And therefore this pretence is justly rejected De J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 6. de Imper. c. 3. with some vehemency by Grotius as being against Scripture reason and the sense of Antiquity 6. Indeed all persons in Authority are bound to do justice but this must only be in their Sphere and according to the proportion of their power but they cannot be allowed to set themselves over their Superiours to usurp upon their Authority or to deny Subjection unto them And with respect to their Soveraign Officers both by Charter and Commission have their Authority depending upon him and are as much his Subjects as other men are and besides the common bonds of Subjection do all with us take the Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance Now as a Servant may not put himself into the place of a Ruler or Judge over his Master to force him to what he thinks equal no more may an inferiour ruler do to his Prince To this purpose it is observed by Sleidan Sleidan Comment l. 17. An. 1546. that the Elector of Saxony who was then the chief person against the Emperour in the German Wars under Charles the fifth did openly declare that if Charles the fifth was owned to be Caesar or a proper Soveraign with respect to those great Princes of the Empire it must then be granted cum eo belligerari non licere that it was not lawful to make War with him And whereas subordinate Rulers are to be submitted unto and reverâ—â—â—d in the regular use of their Authority â—â—â—et if they shall oppose the Superiour â—â—â—â—r they are to be deserted and the acting against them in discharge of duty to the Soveraign is no disobedience Thus S. Austin Aug. de Verb. Dom. Serm. 6. ipsos humanarum rerum gradus advertite consider the orders steps and degrees of human affairs If the Curator command one thing and the Proconsul another must not the greater power be obeyed and so also where the Proconsul commands one thing and the Emperour the contrary And St. Peter in commanding submission to inferiour Governours makes use of these bounds of Subjection as unto them who are sent by him i. e. the King 7. Disparity between secular and Ecclesiastical Governours The objection from the comparing the case of Ecclesiastical and Civil Rulers is of no weight because of the great disparity that is between them The withstanding an Heretical Bishop who would impose corrupt Doctrines upon the Church if this be certain and manifest may lawfully be undertaken not only by the inferiour Clergy but by other Christians and herein they only do their own business of keeping the Faith holding to the truth and rejecting what is contrary thereto Cyp. Epist 68. And S. Cyprian when Basilides and Martialis Spanish bishops had closed with Pagan Idolatry accounted that ordinary Christians ought to separate themselves from such guides And though in our age too many causelessly reject communion with those Officers whom Christ hath set over them which is a sin of no low degree yet it must be acknowledged that there may be just causes for such withdrawing from Communion in obedience to the Christian Doctrine But it can never be lawful for private Christians to usurp to themselves Episcopal power which would be unaccountable and Sacrilegious Aug. ubi sup And if a Soveraign power should command any to embrace Heresie or reject the true Religion or to become unjust to others to refuse such evil practices is their duty they owe to God who is the Supreme Governour and so far they act in their own Sphere but if they take Arms they then take to themselves the power of the publick Sword which is the Soveraigns right and are thereby guilty of invading what is not their own Besides this there is no Ecclesiastical Officer whosoever but his Authority is inferiour to the Authority of the Vniversal Church of which he is a member and this principally takes in the Apostolical and Primitive Church and all Christians are bound to hold to the doctrine and unity of this Church against any
doubt since you refuse the course of all divine and humane laws with them whether by the law of nature they may not defend them selves against such barbarous Blood-suckers And then he adds Yet we stand not on that if the laws of the land where they converse do not permit them to guard their lives when they are assaulted with unjust force against Law or if they take Armes as you do to depose princes we will never excuse them from Rebellion 20. But in truth the Case above-mentioned ought not at all to be supposed or taken into consideration either with respect to this publick acknowledgment or any thing else For there is greater hurt to be feared from the making such suppositions than from the thing supposed since it is much more likely that such designs should be imagined and believed to be true when they are false as they were in the unjust outcryes against our late Gracious Soveraign than that they should be certainly true And every good man yea every reasonable man may have as great confidence that no such case will really happen as can be had concerning the future state and condition of any thing in this World The princes main interest is to preserve the just Rights of his Subjects For though it should be supposed that some princes may be tempted to think that by such means they might carry on some present design which might please themselves or some other persons who flatter them into it yet this will appear to be against their grand interest And the constant preservation of our Fundamental legal rights by our Kings doth manifest that they well understood how much their interest and their subjects were linked together and withal the confidering this is of great use to quiet and satisfy the minds of subjects and therefore I shall take some notice thereof 21. First with respect to Christianity 1. As to Christianity and the otherworld and the interest of another World For though Princes bear not the Sword in vain but may and must use severity where it is necessary against evil doers yet the precepts of Righteousness Meekness and Love and the laws of Nature and of Christianity do as much oblige the greatest persons upon Earth as other men And since they have a righteous Lord and Governour in Heaven thereupon the dying words of David spoken by divine inspiration are to them a necessary Rule He that ruleth over men must be just ruling in the fear of God 2 Sam. 23.3 And they are also as much concerned as others in the threatnings against the disobedience of these divine Precepts And the Holy Scriptures speak much of the sad estate of all persons whomsoever who practise Oppression Cruelty and Unmercifulness And the future tortures in another World of the greatest persons who were evil and injurious here is also plainly expressed by Plato Plat. in Gorg. fin de Repub. l. 10. Indeed Christianity alloweth repentance but that repentance which is available in Cases of wrong and injury must enclude a necessary care of restitution and reparation 22. Secondly with respect to their honour and esteem 2. Their honour As a good name is useful to all men so an high and honourable reputation of Princes gains them that reverence and respect in the World which is of great moment to themselves and their Kingdoms But whilest it is their honour to secure the welfare of their Subjects the open violating their Rights will expose them to be accounted persons of no Fidelity and Integrity And every man accounts his own interest to be maintained and upheld in the establishing Righteousness and Justice but when men calmly consider things they account Injustice and Oppression to be injurious to the general state of Mankind To this purpose any ordinary man who invaded what was anothers right was accounted by Philo to be Phil. de Decal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Common Enemy of humane Society What was it that made this Kingdom so uneasy and weary under those who commanded it before his Majesties Happy Restauration but that the just Rights of his Majesty and others were then prostrated and the Laws of the Realm and the established Religion subverted And the methods of unrighteousness are the more distastful to all men because he who is unjust to one if he have opportunity and can propose to himself an advantage thereby is like to be so to another 23. Thirdly with respect to their safety Salomon observed 3. Their safety Prov. 16.12 that the Throne is established by Righteousness And it must needs be so because this with other acts of goodness is the way to obtain the blessing of God and also to engage the good affections and hearts of the Subjects which are the great security and defence of Princes But where unrighteousness hath manifestly prevailed though not in the highest degree to contrive utter destruction it hath oft been of fatal consequence Cicero observed Cic. de Offic. l. 2. prope fin that when in the Lacedemonian Government Rights were frequently invaded against Justice this occasioned first the ruine of the Governours and then of the Common-wealth and brought great troubles also upon the neighbouring parts of Greece And when the Cruelties Suet. in Domit. n. 10 11 14. Extortions and Impiety of Domitian made him to be feared and hated of all his own Friends and Intimates and his nearest Relations who knew not how to think themselves secure were the persons who contrived and effected his Death 24. Fourthly 4. Their inward satisfaction with respect to the quiet peace and serenity of their own minds How much inward perplexity attendeth the greatest men who are most guilty of Cruelly and Oppression especially when their Consciences are awakened by the sense of any approaching dangers is evident from the great terrour and fearfulness which surprized Caligula Nero and others of the like spirit To this purpose the account given by Philip de Comines Comin l. 7. c. 2. concerning Ferdinand and Alphonso Kings of Naples and Sicily is very remarkable When Ferdinand through his Cruelty and Oppression was hated at home and could by no means procure Peace with the French his mere grief for his miserable condition brake his heart and ended his dayes His Son Alphonso who equalled at least the miscarriages of his Father though he seemed before to be a man of an high spirit and great Courage was now perpetually possessed with such amazement that in the night in his sleep he ordinarily cryed out of the approach of his Enemies and thought that not only men but even Trees and Stones were the appearance of the French coming against him In this his consternation he resigned his Kingdom fled from Naples into Sicily and soon died And though his Son Ferdinand was of a better temper the Subjects being disgusted by these former Kings and not being hearty in his defence he was overcome by his Enemies lost his Kingdom and a little after left the World 25. Thus severe punishments from the dirae ultrices Aurel. Vict. in Caracalla as Aurelius Victor noted or rather from the justice of the righteous God oft attend and torment the greatest Potentates for their unrighteous actions and therefore the doing justice which God particularly enjoins must needs be their interest as well as their duty And as all these things I have mentioned are useful considerations against all injuriousness so are they of especial weight against the highest oppression and designs of ruine And besides what I have here discoursed Ch. 2. Sect. 2. n. 3 4 c. I also refer the Reader to what I have said in a former Chapter concerning the security which Subjects have of their interest and property though they may not take Arms against their Soveraign And these things may be sufficient to quell and suppress uncharitable and unreasonable and unchristian jealousies and suspicions if they be impartially and calmly pondered 26. Wherefore since our Religion enjoins us to fear God and honour the King let no evil imaginations be entertained to hinder this duty For as we by the mercy of God live under a Prince of great Clemency and Justice so there is little cause to fear that any Soveraign who stands so much concerâ—â—d from the most solemn obligations and his own interest every way to maintain and preserve the Laws and the good of his people should ever endeavour against these established Laws to contrive the ruine of them nor can there be any pretence that lesser inconveniencies should be a foundation for Warlike Insurrections And let every Christian practise that Obedience and submission to Superiours which the Rules of Equity the nature of Civil Society and especially the Laws of our Christian profession do require But let that unruly and turbulent spirit be utterly rejected unto which ungoverned passions provoke evil men Joseph Ant. l. 17. c. 3. This was one part of the bad temper of the Pharisees that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such who had a special faculty of opposing and going counter unto Kings but no such thing was in the Life or Doctrine of our Saviour nor ought to be in any who own themselves to be his Disciples 27. And now I shall conclude with an humble and hearty Supplication to Almighty God in which I entreat the Reader to join also That he would bless and preserve our present Soveraign and that he and his Successors may alwayes Rule in Prosperity and Peace and in a constant exercise of Piety Justice and Mercy That they may ever effectually maintain and promote the true profession and practice of Religion and the welfare of the Church of God That these Kingdoms may flourish and be under the continual blessing of God and his Protection and Care and that the Inhabitants thereof may faithfully serve him And that no Vnchristian Jealousies and Suspicions or any evil Seeds of Discord may take Root amongst us and that our Holy Religion may never henceforth be evil spoken of through any Vnchristian practices of Rebellion which are opposite to true Christian Loyalty Amen FINIS
ult but a very short time before his death and Constantius also his Son was baptized at the end of his life and reign But Baronius Binius Durantus Bar. an 324. n. 29. c. Bin. in Vit. Silv. Pol. de Bapt. Constant Durant de Rit l. 1. c. 19. n. 8. and before them Cardinal Poole in a particular Tract and many other Popish Writers out of respect to the Romish See will have his Baptism to be administred divers years before at Rome by Silvester some of them boldly charging Eusebius with a design of forgery and falshood in this relation 2. But he who shall consider Constantine not baptized at Rome by Silvester how much Eusebius conversed with Constantine himself and how remarkable a thing his baptism must needs be after the continued series of Pagan Emperours and also how many particularities are expressed by Eusebius both concerning words and actions of Constantine at that time and place which had relation to his baptism will think it unlikely that his account should be an imposture Socr. l. 1. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he who shall further observe that Nicomedia was no obscure place but a populous City in which was an Imperial Palace where Constantine sometimes resided and there died and that all this was related to be done in a time of so much remark as then was the fifty days from Easter to Whitsontide and when many Bishops were called thither to be present at this solemn action if all this was as Baronius and Binius pretend a designed forgery of Eusebius there was great want of cunning in the contrivement And he must be a man arrived at a strange height both of impudence and folly who would attempt the obtruding such a cheat upon the World which could not but be generally contradicted in that age I suppose that no man of common sense can perswade himself that if he would undertake to write that our late gracious Soveraign King Charles the First was put to death at Dublin or Edinburgh in 1660. which is a parallel to what these men fancy of Eusebius that ever he should be believed 3. And yet it is much more incredible that if this had been such a palpable imposture that both Socrates Socr. l. 1. c. 26. Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 32. Soz. l. 2. c. 32. Evagr. Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 41. Theodoret Sozomen Evagrius and divers other Historians since them should agree with Eusebius herein and that none of these nor any other genuine ancient Writer should make discovery of his errour who yet mention many things concerning Constantine not expressed in Eusebius And besides what might be learned by general fame and particular writings Socr. l. 1. c. 7. Socrates had himself opportunity of receiving intelligence concerning divers things done in Constantines reign from some persons of good credit who lived till his time and one who was present in the Council of Nice 4. Besides this S. Ambrose Ambr. in fun Theod who lived at the end of that Age and in Italy not far from Rome where Constantine is pretended to have been baptized about thirteen years before his death gives a plain testimony that his baptism was at the end and close of his life For speaking of Constantine he saith Cui baptismi gratia in ultimis constituto omnia peccata dimisit which expressions have puzzled Baronius nor can they be referred as he and Binius would have them to any time of sickness but his last 5. And that Synod held at Ariminum in Italy in the reign of Constantius consisting of the Western Bishops which held the Faith of Nice declared their resolution in their Synodical Epistle to Constantius which is extant in Athanasius Socrates Athan. de Synod Socr. l. 2 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. l. 2. c. 19. Sozomen and Theodoret not to innovate any thing in that Faith which Constantine with all accurateness and strictness of examination did publish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose memory deserved to be famous after his death Soz. l. 4. c. 17. and who after his baptism to wit into this faith was taken from among men and went into peace Ubi supra But Baronius and Binius to avoid this testimony undertake to correct this Epistle and instead of Constantine read Constans pretending that it is so read in Athanasius to which because this testimony is considerable I shall return two things 1. That it is indeed true that the latine translation of Athanasius hath Constans but the Greek in Athanasius readeth it Constantine and it is very unreasonable that the original Greek of four several Authors should be corrected only from the different reading of one latine translation of much later date and possibly altered with design 2. That the words mentioned in that Epistle cannot be applyed to any other Emperour but only to Constantine the Great of whom they were discoursing Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 6. In his time and much under his care the faith of Nice was published and promulged which is oft expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he himself declared concerning his care about it at Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words of his the Synod at Ariminum did probably allude unto 6. Now against all this great evidence they who oppose it do not produce the authority of any one ancient genuine Catholick Writer But they bring forth such spurious stuff as the acts of Silvester and Liberius which are manifestly fabulous insomuch that Baronius acknowledgeth An. 315. n. 12 13 14 17. iis complura veritati manifeste adversantia inesse perspicuo demonstratur with other words of like severe censure They also urge a pretended Preface to a Council at Rome under Silvester which speaketh of Constantine being baptized by Silvester But they have not these words from any Copy of such a Council it self but from a Writing of an uncertain Author intituled Epilogus brevis c. of which Binius confesseth Not. in Conc. Rom. 2. sub Silvest hujus Epilogi initium de mendacio suspectum redditur that the beginning of this writing is under a suspicion of being false They also have recourse unto Zosimus a Greek Historian but from him th◠produce nothing of the baptism of Constantine but he telleth a manifestly false and slanderous story of the occasion of Constantines first resolution of embracing Christianity and both the acts of Silvester and the words of the Preface above-mentioned do encline to the same thing But Zosimus being a bitter Enemy to Christianity is declared by Baronius when he writes concerning things of the Christian Religion An. 306. n. 18. an 313. n. 15. passim to be an evident depraver of truth manifestus proditor veritatis in Constantinum iniquissimus with other expressions of like nature And the pretence that the Font is yet to be seen at Rome in which Constantine