IX. The last thing of all which concerns the king’s supremacy is, whether thereby he may be exempted from being subject to that judicial power which ecclesiastical consistories have over men. It seemeth, first, in most men’s judgments to be requisite that on earth there should not be any alive altogether without standing in awe of some by whom they may be controlled and bridled.
The good estate of a commonwealth within itself is thought on nothing to depend more than upon these two special affections, fear and love: fear in the highest governor himself; and love, in the subjects that live under him. The subject’s love for the most part continueth as long as the righteousness of kings doth last; in whom virtue decayeth not as long as they fear to do that which may alienate the loving hearts of their subjects from them. Fear to do evil groweth from the harm which evildoers are to suffer. If therefore private men, which know the danger they are subject unto, being malefactors, do notwithstanding so boldly adventure upon heinous crimes, only because they know it is possible for some transgressor sometimes to escape the danger of law: in the mighty upon earth, (which are not always so virtuous and holy that their own good minds will bridle them,) what may we look for, considering the frailty of man’s nature, if the world do once hold it for a maxim that kings ought to live in no subjection: that, how grievous disorders1 soever they fall into, none may have coercive power over them? Yet so it is that this we must necessarily admit, as a number of right well learned men are persuaded.
Let us therefore set down first, what there is which2 may induce men so to think; and then consider their several inventions or ways, who judge it a thing necessary, even for kings themselves, to be punishable, and that by men. The question itself we will not determine. The reasons of each opinion being opened, it shall be best for the wise to judge which of them is likeliest to be true. Our purpose being not to oppugn any save only that which reformers hold; and of the rest, rather to inquire than to give sentence. Inducements leading men to think the highest magistrate should not be judged of any, saving God alone, are specially these. 1. First, as there could be in natural bodies no motion of any thing, unless there were some which moveth3 all things and continueth unmoveable4; even so in politic societies there must be some unpunishable, or else no man shall suffer punishment. For sith punishments proceed always from superiors, to whom the administration of justice belongeth, which administration must have necessarily a fountain that deriveth it to all others, and receiveth it5 not from any; because otherwise the course of justice should go infinitely in a circle, every superior having his superior without end, which cannot be: therefore a well-spring it followeth there is, and a supreme head of justice, whereunto all are subject, but itself in subjection to none. Which kind of preeminence if some ought to have in a kingdom, who but the king should have it? Kings therefore no man can have lawfully power and authority to judge. If private men offend, there is the magistrate over them, which judgeth. If magistrates, they have their prince. If princes, there is Heaven, a tribunal, before which they shall appear: on earth they are not accountable to any.
2. Which thing likewise the very original of kingdoms6 doth shew.
“His second point, whereby he would make us odious, is, that we think the prince may be subject to excommunication; that is, that he is a brother7, that he is not without but within the Church8. If this be dangerous, why is it printed and allowed in the famous writings of bishop Jewel9: ‘In that the high priest10 doth his office when he excommunicates and cuts off a dead member from the body, so far forth the prince, be he never so mighty, is inferior to him. Yea not only to a bishop, but to a simple priest?’ Why is it suffered which Mr. Nowell hath written11, ‘The prince ought patiently to abide excommunication at the bishop’s hands?’ Why are not the worthy examples of emperors rased12 out of the histories, seeing they have been subject to his [this] censure13?”
The Jews were forbidden to choose an alien king over them; inasmuch as there is not any thing more natural than that the head and the body subject thereunto should always, if it were possible, be linked in that bond of nearness also which birth and breeding as it were in the bowels of one common mother usually causeth. Which being true did not greatly need to be alleged for proof that kings are in the Church of God of the same spiritual fraternity with their subjects: a thing not denied nor doubted of.
Indeed the king is a brother; but such a brother as unto whom all the rest of the brethren are subject. He is a sheaf of the Lord’s field as the rest are; howbeit, a sheaf which is so far raised up above the rest14 that they all owe reverence unto it. The king is a brother which hath dominion over all his brethren. A strange conclusion to gather hereby, that therefore some of his brethren ought to have the authority of correcting him. We read that God did say unto David, “If Solomon thy son forget my laws, I will punish his transgressions with a rod.” But that he gave dominion unto any of Solomon’s brethren to chastise Solomon, we do not read.
It is a thing very much alleged, that the church of the Jews had the sword of excommunication. Is any man able to allege where the same was ever drawn forth against the king? Yet how many of their kings how notoriously spotted?
Our Saviour’s words are, “If thy brother offend thee.” And St. Paul’s, “Do ye not judge them that are within?” Both which speeches are but indefinite. So that neither the one nor the other is any let but some brother there may be whose person is exempt from being subject to any such kind of proceeding: some within, yet not therefore under, the jurisdiction of any other. Sentences, indefinitely uttered, must sometimes universally be understood: but not where the subject or matter spoken of doth in particulars admit that difference which may in reason seclude any part from society with the residue of that whole, whereunto one common thing is attributed. As in this case it clearly fareth where the difference between kings and others of the Church is a reason sufficient to separate the one from the other in that which is spoken of brethren, albeit the name of brethren itself do agree to both. Neither doth our Saviour nor the Apostle speak in more general sort15 of ecclesiastical punishments than Moses in his law doth of civil: “If there be found men or the man “amongst you that hath served other gods16.” Again, “The man that committeth adultery.” The punishment of both which transgressions being death, what man soever did offend therein, why was not Manasses for the one, for the other why not David accordingly executed? “Rex judicat, non judicatur,” saith one. The king is appointed a judge of all men that live under him; but not any of them his judge.
17The king18 is not subject unto laws; that is to say, the punishment which breach of laws doth bring upon inferiors taketh not hold on the king’s person; although the general laws which all mankind is bound unto do tie no less the king than others, but rather more. For the grievousness of sin is aggravated by the greatness of him that committeth it: for which cause it also maketh him by so much the more obnoxious unto Divine revenge, by how much the less he feareth human.
Touching Bishop Jewel’s opinion hereof19, there is not in the place alleged any one word or syllable against the king’s prerogative royal to be free from the coercive power of all spiritual, both persons and courts, within the compass of his own dominions. “In that,” saith he, “the priest doeth his office, in that he openeth God’s word, or declareth his threats, or rebuketh sin, or excommunicateth and cutteth off a dead member from the body; so far forth the prince, be he never so mighty, is inferior unto him. But in this respect the prince is inferior not only to the pope or bishop, but also to any other simple priest.” He disputeth earnestly against that supremacy which the bishop of Rome did challenge over his sovereign lord the emperor: and by many allegations he laboureth to shew that popes have been always subject unto his supreme dominion, not he to theirs; he supreme judge over them, not they over him. Now whereas it was objected, that within the Church, when the priest doth execute his office, the very prince is inferior to him; so much being granted by Mr. Jewel, he addeth that this doth no more prove the pope than the simplest priest in the Church to be lord and head over kings. For although it doth hereby appear that in those things which belong to his priestly office the pope may do that which kings are not licensed to meddle with; in which respect it cannot be denied but that the emperor himself hath not only less power than the chiefest bishop, but even less than the meanest priest within his empire, and is consequently every priest’s inferior that way: nevertheless, sith this appertaineth nothing at all to judicial authority and power, how doth this prove kings and emperors to be by way of subjection inferior to the pope as to their ecclesiastical judge? Impertinently therefore is the answer, which to such effect that admirable prelate maketh, brought by way of evidence to shew that in his opinion the king may not be exempted from the coercive authority and power of his own Clergy, but ought for his faults to be as punishable in their courts as any other subject under him.
The excommunication, which good Mr. Nowell thinketh that princes ought patiently to suffer at the bishop’s hands, is no other than that which we also grant may be exercised on such occasions and in such manner as those two alleged examples out of antiquity do enforce.
“It is reported,” saith Eusebius20, “that one of the Philips which succeeded Gordian, came, being a Christian, to join with the rest of the people in prayer, the last festival day of Easter. At which time he which governed the Church there whither the emperor did resort, would in no case admit him, unless he first made confession, and were contented afterwards to stay his time in the place appointed for penitents,” (according to the manner of Church discipline in those days, whereof we have spoken in the fifth [sixth?] book sufficiently); “because he was known to be many ways faulty. To this he readily condescended, making manifest by his deeds his true and religious affection to Godwards.”
Another example there is, of the emperor Theodosius, who understanding that violence in the city of Thessalonica had been offered unto certain magistrates, sent in great rage a band of men; and, without any examination had to know where the fault was, slew mel-pell both guilty and innocent, to the number of 700021. It chanced afterwards, that the emperor coming to Milan, and intending to go to the Church as his accustomed manner was, St. Ambrose the bishop of that city, who before had heard of the emperor’s so cruel and bloody an act, met him before the gate of the church, and in this wise forbade him to enter: “Emperor, it seemeth that how great the slaughter is which thyself hast made thou weighest not; nor, as I think, when wrath was settled did reason ever call to account what thou hadst committed. Peradventure thine imperial royalty hindreth the acknowledgment of thy sin; and thy power is a let to reason. Notwithstanding know thou shouldst what our nature is, how frail a thing and how fading; and that the first original from whence we have all sprung was the very dust whereunto we must slide again. Neither is it meet that being inveigled with the show of thy glistering robes thou shouldst forget the imbecility of that flesh which is covered therewith. Thy subjects (O emperor) are in nature thy colleagues: yea even in her vice [service?] thou art also joined as a fellow with them. For there is one Lord and Emperor, the Maker of this whole assembly of all things. With what eyes therefore wilt thou look upon the habitation of that common Lord? With what feet wilt thou tread upon that sacred floor? How wilt thou stretch forth those hands from which the blood as yet of unrighteous slaughter doth distil? The body of our Lord all holy how wilt thou take into such hands? How wilt thou put his honourable blood unto that mouth, the wrathful word whereof hath caused against all order of law the pouring out of so much blood? Depart therefore, and go not about by after deeds to add to thy former iniquity. Receive that bond wherewith from heaven the Lord of all doth give consent that thou shouldst be tied; a bond which is medicinable, and procureth health.” Hereunto the king submitted himself; (for being brought up in religion he knew very well what belonged unto priests, what unto kings;) and with sobbing tears returned to the court again. Some eight months after, came the feast of our Saviour’s Nativity; but yet the king sat still at home, mourning and emptying the lake of tears: which when Rufinus beheld, being at that time commander over the king’s house, and by reason of usual access the bolder to speak; he came and asked the cause of those tears. To whom the king, with bitter grief and tears more abundantly gushing out, answered; “Thou, O Ruffin, dalliest, for mine evils thou feelest not: I mourn and bewail mine own wretchedness, considering that servants and beggars go freely to the house of God, and there present themselves before their Lord: whereas both from thence and from heaven also I am excluded. For in my mind I carry that voice of our Lord which saith with express terms, ‘Whomsoever ye shall bind on earth, he in heaven shall be bound also.’ ” The rest of the history, which concerneth the manner of the emperor’s admission after so earnest repentance, needeth not to be here set down.
It now remaineth to be examined whether these alleged examples prove that which they should do, yea or no. The thing which they ought to confirm is, that no less Christian kings than other persons under them ought to be subject to the selfsame coercive authority of Church-governors, and for the same kinds of transgressions, to receive at their hands the same spiritual censure of excommunication judicially inflicted by way of punishment. But in the aforesaid examples, whether we consider the offence itself of the excommunicate, or the persons excommunicating, or the manner of their proceeding; which three comprehend the whole substance of that which was done; it doth not by any of these appear that kings in suchwise should be subject. For, concerning the offences of men, there is no breach of Christian charity, whether it be by deed or by word; no excess, no lightness of speech or behaviour; no fault for which a man in the course of his life is openly noted as blameable; but the same being unamended through admonition ought, (as they say,) with the spiritual censure of excommunication to be punished. Wherefore unless they can shew, that in some such ordinary transgression, kings and princes, upon contempt of the Church’s more mild censure, have been like other men in ancient times excommunicated, what should hinder any man to think but that the rare and unwonted crimes of those two emperors did cause their bishops to try what unusual remedy would work in so desperate diseases? Which opinion is also made more probable, inasmuch as the very histories, which have recorded them, propose them for strange and admirable patterns; the bishops, of boldness; the emperors, of meekness and humility. The [they?] wonder at the one, for adventuring to do it unto emperors; at the other, for taking it in so good part at the hands of bishops. What greater argument that all which was herein done proceeded from extraordinary zeal on both sides, and not from a settled judicial authority which the one was known to have over the other by a common received order in the Church. For at such things who would wonder?
Furthermore, if ye consider their persons, whose acts these excommunications were; he which is said to have excommunicated Philip emperor of Rome was Babylas the bishop of Antioch: and he which Theodosius emperor of Constantinople, Ambrose the bishop of Milan. Neither of which two bishops (as I suppose) was ordinary unto either of the two emperors. And therefore they both were incompetent judges, and such as had no authority to punish whom they excommunicated: except we will grant the emperor to have been so much the more subject than his subjects, that whereas the meanest of them was under but some one diocesan, any that would might be judge over him. But the manner of proceeding doth as yet more plainly evict that these examples make less than nothing for proof that ecclesiastical governors had at that time judicial authority to excommunicate emperors and kings. For what form of judgment was there observed, when neither judges nor parties judged did once dream of any such matter; till the one by chance repaired unto the place where the others were, and at that very instant suffered a sudden repulse; not only besides their own expectation, but also without any purpose beforehand in them who gave it? Judicial punishment hath at the leastwise sentence going always before execution, whereas all which we read of here is, that the guilty being met in the way were presently turned back, and not admitted to be partakers of those holy things whereof they were famously known unworthy.
I therefore conclude, that these excommunications have neither the nature of judicial punishments, nor the force of sufficient arguments to prove that ecclesiastical judges should have authority to call their own sovereign to appear before them into their consistories, there to examine, to judge, and by excommunication to punish them, if so be they be found culpable.
But concerning excommunication, such as is only a dutiful, religious, and holy refusal to admit notorious transgressors in so extreme degree unto the blessed communion of saints, especially the mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ, till their humbled penitent minds be made manifest: this we grant every king bound to abide at the hands of any minister of God wheresoever through the world. As for judicial authority to punish malefactors, if the king be as the kings of Israel were, and as every of ours is, a supreme Lord, than whom none under God is by way of ruling authority and power higher, where he reigneth, how should any man there have the high place of a judge over him? He must be more than thine equal that hath a chastising power over thee: so far is it off that any under thee should be thy judge. Wherefore, sith the kings of England are within their own dominions the most high, and can have no peer, how is it possible that any, either civil or ecclesiastical person under them should have over them coercive power, when such power would make that person so far forth his superior’s superior, ruler, and judge? It cannot therefore stand with the nature of such sovereign regiment that any subject should have power to exercise on kings so highly authorized the greatest censure of excommunication, according to the platform of Reformed Discipline: but if this ought to take place, the other is necessarily to give place. For which cause, till better reason be brought, to prove that kings cannot lawfully be exempted from subjection unto ecclesiastical courts, we must and do affirm their said exemption lawful.
← Their r power to command all persons, and to · Contents
Footnotes
-
d disorder Cl. Tr. ↩
-
e that. ↩
-
f moved. ↩
-
g immoveable. ↩
-
h it om. ↩
-
i kingdom. ↩
-
Deut. xvii. 15. Matt. xviii. 15. ↩
-
1 Cor. v. 12, 13. ↩
-
Def. Apol. part 6. p. 720. [c. 12. div. 1. p. 582. ed. 1611.] ↩
-
[Jewel, and the Counterpoison, both read priest, not high priest.] ↩
-
Tom. ii. f. 53. [“The Reproof of M. Dorman his proof of certain Articles of Religion, &c. continued by Alexander Nowell. With a Defence of the chief Authority and Government of Christian Princes as well in causes ecclesiastical as civil within their own dominions, by M. Dorman maliciously oppugned.” Lond. 1566. f. 51. “We profess, as doth Calvin, that the prince himself ought to be obedient to the ecclesiastical minister executing these his offices according to God’s word; yea though it be against the prince himself, according as Theodosius the emperor was in this case obedient to St. Ambrose.”] ↩
-
Euseb. l. vi. c. 14. Theod. v. c. 18. ↩
-
Counter[poison,] page 174. [Comp. T. C. iii. 93, for the whole of this except the reference to Bp. Jewel. And Eccl. Disc. 142, 143. “Neque vero hic magistratus, etsi in reliqua ecclesia politicæ auctoritatis ratione emineant, se ab hoc parendi et ecclesiasticis magistratibus obediendi præcepto et mandato eximendos esse arbitrentur. Quum enim non minus de magistrorum quam de aliorum salute illos solicitos esse oporteat, et illius etiam animam, ut cæterorum, sua cura contineant, illis etiam non minus quam reliquis parendum est, et ecclesiasticorum magistratuum justæ auctoritati obtemperandum. Atque cum illi Jesu Christi non solum auctoritate præsint, sed ipsam quodammodo personam sustineant, quum nullo suo imperio, sed illius solo verbo et mandato omnia administrent; annon æquum est, illis vel summos magistratus et reges ipsos obtemperare? Huic enim omnes orbis principes et monarchæ fasces suos submittere et parere decet [debent]; quem Deus regni sui hæredem, et cœli atque terræ Dominum constituit.” Then he proceeds to give examples, and dwells especially upon the cases of Philip and Theodosius.] ↩
-
Gen. xxxvii. 7. ↩
-
[T. C. iii. 92. “Who could be ignorant that our Saviour Christ speaketh generally when he saith, ‘if thy brother,’ &c. whereby he comprehendeth all those that are members of one church and children of one heavenly Father. In which number the Scripture reckoneth the king, whilst in that he is both called a brother, and calleth his subjects brethren. Or who could be ignorant that St. Paul subjecteth all unto this order, saving those only which are strangers from the Church. So that to say that princes are not subject unto this order, is all one as if he should say that princes pertain not to the kingdom of heaven, are none of the Church, have no part with Christ, &c. Thus is both Christ robbed of his honour, which in contempt of his order (as though it were too base for princes to go under) is himself contemned; and princes defrauded of a singular aid of salvation, and way to draw them to repentance, when they, through the common corruption, fall into such diseases against which this medicine was prepared.”] ↩
-
Deut. xvii. 2. ↩
-
a D. has a space of half a page here. ↩
-
Ὁ βασιλεὺς νόμοις οὐχ ὑπόκειται, ἤγουν ἁμαρτήσας οὐ κολάζεται. Καὶ κατὰ βασιλέως οἱ γενικοὶ ἤγουν οἱ καθολικοὶ κρατείτωσαν νόμοι. Harmenop. [Promptuarium Juris] l. 1. c. i. § 48 et 39. [ed. Gothofred. 1587.] ↩
-
Def. p. 6. c. 12. div. 1. ↩
-
Eus. l. vi. c. 33. [34. Του̑τον κατέχει λόγος Χριστιανὸν ὄντα, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τη̑ς ὑστάτης του̑ πάσχα παννυχίδος, τω̑ν ἐπὶ τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας εὐχω̑ν τῳ̑ πλήθει μετασχει̑ν ἐθελη̑σαι, οὐ πρότερον δὲ ὑπὸ του̑ τηνικάδε προεστω̑τος ἐπιτραπη̑ναι εἰσβαλει̑ν, ἢ ἐξομολογήσασθαι, καὶ τοι̑ς ἐν παραπτώμασιν ἐξεταζομένοις μετανοίας τε χώραν ἴσχουσιν ἑαυτὸν καταλέξαι· ἄλλως γὰρ μὴ ἄν ποτε πρὸς αὐτου̑, μὴ οὐχὶ του̑το ποιήσαντα, διὰ πολλὰς τω̑ν κατ’ αὐτὸν αἰτίας παραδεχθη̑ναι. Καὶ πειθαρχη̑σαί γε προθύμως λέγεται, τὸ γνήσιον καὶ εὐλαβὲς τη̑ς περὶ τὸν θει̑ον ϕόβον διαθέσεως ἔργοις ἐπιδεδειγμένον. Comp. Chron. Alex. ad 253. p. 270. ed. Du Fresne. S. Chrys. t. xi. 531 . . 45. Suid. voc. Βαβυλα̑ς. Philostorg. vii. 8. Of which conflicting accounts the first is the only one which gives any countenance to the narration of Eusebius.] ↩
-
Sozom. [Theod.] l. v. c. 18. [Ἀϕικόμενον εἰς τὴν Μεδιόλανον τὸν βασιλέα, καὶ συνήθως εἰς τὸν θει̑ον εἰσελθει̑ν βουληθέντα νεὼν, ὑπαντήσας (Ἀμβρόσιος) ἔξω τω̑ν προθύρων, ἐπιβη̑ναι τω̑ν ἱερω̑ν προπυλαίων τοιάδε λέγων ἐκώλυσεν· “οὐκ οἰ̑σθα, ὡς ἔοικεν, ὡ̑ βασιλευ̑, τη̑ς εἰργασμένης μιαιϕονίας τὸ μέγεθος, οὐδὲ μετὰ τὴν του̑ θυμου̑ παυ̑λαν ὁ λογισμὸς ἐπέγνω τὸ τολμηθέν. οὐκ ἐᾳ̑ γὰρ ἴσως τη̑ς βασιλείας ἡ δυναστεία ἐπιγνω̑ναι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἀλλ’ ἐπιπροσθει̑ ἡ ἐξουσία τῳ̑ λογισμῳ̑· χρὴ μέντοι εἰδέναι τὴν ϕύσιν, καὶ τὸ ταύτης θνητόν τε καὶ διάρρεον, καὶ τὸν πρόγονον χου̑ν ἐξ οὑ̑ γεγόναμεν, καὶ εἰς ὃν ἀπορρέομεν· καὶ μὴ τῳ̑ ἄνθει τη̑ς ἀλουργίδος ἀποβουκολούμενον, ἀγνοει̑ν του̑ καλυπτομένου σώματος τὴν ἀσθένειαν. ὁμοϕυω̑ν ἄρχεις, ὡ̑ βασιλευ̑, καὶ μὲν δὴ καὶ ὁμοδούλων. εἱ̑ς γὰρ ἁπάντων δεσπότης καὶ βασιλεὺς, ὁ τω̑ν ὅλων δημιουργός. ποίοις τοίνυν ὀϕθαλμοι̑ς ὄψει τὸν του̑ κοινου̑ δεσπότου νεών; ποίοις δὲ ποσὶ τὸ δάπεδον ἐκει̑νο πατήσεις τὸ ἅγιον; πω̑ς δὲ τὰς χει̑ρας ἐκτενει̑ς, ἀποσταζούσας ἔτι του̑ ἀδίκου ϕόνου τὸ αἱ̑μα; πω̑ς δὲ τοιαύταις ὑποδέξῃ χερσὶ του̑ δεσπότου τὸ πανάγιον σω̑μα; πω̑ςδὲ τῳ̑ στόματι προσοίσεις τὸ αἱ̑μα τὸ τίμιον, τοσου̑τον διὰ τὸν του̑ θυμου̑ λόγον ἐκχέας παρανόμως αἱ̑μα; ἄπιθι τοίνυν, καὶ μὴ πειρω̑ τοι̑ς δευτέροις τὴν προτέραν αὔξειν παρανομίαν· καὶ δέχου τὸν δεσμὸν ᾠ̑ ὁ Θεὸς ὁ τω̑ν ὅλων δεσπότης ἄνωθεν γίνεται σύμψηϕος· ἰατρικὸς δὲ οὑ̑τος, καὶ πρόξενος ὑγιείας.” Τούτοις εἴξας ὁ βασιλεὺς τοι̑ς λόγοις· (τοι̑ς γὰρ θείοις λογίοις ἐντεθραμμένος, ᾔδει σαϕω̑ς τἰνα μὲν τω̑ν ἱερέων, τίνα δὲ τω̑ν βασιλέων ἴδια·) στένων καὶ δακρύων ἐπανη̑λθεν εἰς τὰ βασίλεια· χρόνου δὲ συχνου̑ διελθόντος· ὀκτὼ γὰρ ἀναλώθησαν μη̑νες· κατέλαβεν ἡ του̑ σωτη̑ρος ἡμω̑ν γενέθλιος ἑορτή. ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἐν τοι̑ς βασιλείοις ὀλοϕυρόμενος καθη̑στο, τὴν τω̑ν δακρύων ἀναλίσκων λιβάδα· του̑το θεασάμενος Ῥουϕι̑νος· μάγιστρος δὲ τηνικαυ̑τα ἠ̑ν καὶ πολλη̑ς μέτασχε παρρησίας, ἅτε δὴ συνηθέστερος ὢν, προσελθὼν ἤρετο τω̑ν δακρύων τὸ αἴτιον· ὁ δὲ πικρω̑ς ἀνοιμώξας, καὶ σϕοδρότερον προχέας τὸ δάκρυον, “σὺ μὲν,” ἔϕη, “Ῥουϕι̑νε, παίζεις, τω̑ν γὰρ ἐμω̑ν οὐκ ἐπαισθάνῃ κακω̑ν· ἐγὼ δὲ στένω καὶ ὀλοϕύρομαι τὴν ἐμαυτου̑ συμϕορὰν λογιζόμενος, ὡς τοι̑ς μὲν οἰκέταις καὶ τοι̑ς προσαίταις ἄνετος ὁ θει̑ος νεὼς, καὶ εἰσίασιν ἀδεω̑ς, καὶ τὸν οἰκει̑ον ἀντιβολου̑σι δεσπότην· ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ οὑ̑τος ἄβατος, καὶ πρὸς τούτῳ μοι ὁ οὐρανὸς ἀποκέκλεισται· μέμνημαι γὰρ τη̑ς δεσποτικη̑ς ϕωνη̑ς ἣ διαρρήδην ϕησὶν, ὃν ἂν δήσητε ἐπὶ τη̑ς γη̑ς, ἔσται δεδεμένος ἐν τοι̑ς οὐρανοι̑ς.” Comp. S. Ambr. Ep. li. t. ii. 997 ad circ. 390. and Paulin. vit. S. Ambros. c. 2. ibid. App. col. vii.] ↩