holdes this his ground of Soueraigntyâ— The Kinge hath no superiour but God alone iâ— â—lippery and vncertayne that he dares not stand vpon it himself For elswhere contradicting this principle he â—aith in playne termes that Kings that â—aue giueÌ„ their names vnto Christ are sheepe of â—is fold so are to obey their spirituall pastors â—auing ouersight ouer them that they are to be â—bedient vnto their spirituall Pastors as Emâ—assadors from Christ thâ—tâ— Kings and Bishops â—e mutually Pastors and Superiors one to the â—ther Yf Bishops be ouerseers Pastors Superiors to the King how is it true â—hat the King hath no superiour but God alone Yf nothing be more excellent noâ—hing more sublime then a Bishop as our Theodidact approuing S. Ambrose his â—aying teacheth â—o wit in spirituall â—nd Ecclesiasticall causes which to adâ—minister they are sent how can a King â—e more excellent then a Bishop in â—hose causes Is it possible that the same man should be superior and subiect to â—he same persons in respect of the same Court I confesse I cannot vnderstand this diuinity that subiects may iudg â—heir Superiors euen in those causes wherin they are subordinate to them That the Kinge supreme Gouernour of the Church may be sententially summoned arraiâ—gned and cast out of the Church by a Bishop â— Yf soueraigne Princes may be iudgeâ— by their subiects in those causes wherin they are supreme and independant what doth their supremacy auaile theÌ„â— Yf supreme gouernors of the Churcâ— may be cast out of the Church by theiâ— Bishops that arâ— their spirituall subiects what solid reason can Theodidacâ— assigne why Soueraignes may not likeâ—wise be cast out of their Kingdome by their Barons and Peeres thougâ— they be their vassalls Philanax I could wish our Authors concerning the Kings supremacy spake morâ— coherently yet seeing this proposition the King hath no superior but Goâ— alone doth so much extoll the Soueâ—raignty of Kings I can not be broughâ— to forsake Theodidact herein except bâ— the confutation of his reasons I perceaue this pillar of Maiestye to be vncertayne and vnsound Aristobulus Small reading and skill in Scriâ—ture is sufficiâ—nt to shew that Theodidacts arguments against Papists be not so conuincing as we may securely ground the authority of Kinges therâ—pon For either thâ—â— make nothing to the purpose or els proue what Papists do not deny that the King is supreme in temporalls His maynâ—â—round and principle is that in the old Testament Priests were not superior to Kings but rather that Kings were their Iudges Could he haue assumed a doctrine more vncertaine or rather more false then is this A doctrine against the learnedst of the Iewes Iosephus saith that to their Priests not to Kings was committed the custody of the Law and the charge of greatest affaires so that they were ouerseers of all Iudges of controuersies and punisher of offenders Philo writeth that Priestly dignity is preferred before royall by the Iewes who iudge Priesthood by so much the more excellent then Royalty by how much God surpasseth man With whomâ— agree the Chriâ—tian Fathers namely S. Chrysostome auerring that God woulâ— haue Kings submit their heads to the hands of Priests that men might vnderstand that Priestâ— are more worthy Princes and more venerable then are Kings Yea the word of God seâ—meth â—o distinguish the office of high Priest from the office of King assigning to the high Priest the care of things that pertayne to God to the Kinge the châ—rge of temporall affayres And who conuersant in the old Testament knoweth not that to the high Priâ—â—â— was giuen the supreme and last power to decide all controuersies about the law VVhosoeuer shal be proude and refuse to obey the sentence of the Priest let that man dye the death Philanax These testimony of the Fathers and Scriptures seeme very vrgent But hath not Theodidact made some answere to them Aristobulus No nor brought any proof of his opinion besides the bare example of â—alomon that deposed Abiathar the high Priest â—nd placed Sadocke in his roome â— But first be â—roues not that Salomon deposed Abiaâ—har lawfully that therein he exceeded â—ot the boundes of his authority The deeds of Kings be not euer iustifiable â—or was Salomon such a Saint that we may thinke all his actioÌ„s praise worthy without further proof Secondly he proueth not that Salomon deposed Abiaâ—har by the ordinary power of King Papists say Salomon did in that action proceed not as King but as Prophet Which answere Theodidact doth not confute but misvnderstand as though they meâ—nt that Salomon was therfore a Prophet because he fulfilled what God had foretould against the house of Heli which he reiecteth with a iest that so Herod might be tearmed a Prophet in murthering the Innocents because therin he â—ulfilled what God by Ieremie had foretolde But the Papists be not so absurde as to say that whosoeuer fulfilleth a prophecy is a Prophet nor that Iudas in betraying his Maister and hanging himself was a Prophet though therin he fulfilled prophecies They say that God to the end that what he had threatned aâ—gainst the house of Heli might come tâ— passe he gaue to Salomon propheticall extraordinary Commission to deposâ— Abiâ—thar high Priest of the stock of Helâ— Salomons royall authority not beinâ— sufficieâ—â— for the lawfull performancâ— thereof Which doctrine is so solidâ— that Theodidact not being able to ouerâ—throw it by argument thought gooâ— to make it ridiculous by mistaking itâ— Finally though we graunt that Saloâ—mon deposed Abiathar and by Kingly authority the most that may be thencâ— inâ—erred is that Salomon was supremâ— in temporall affaires and might puâ—nish Priests in case of Treason Whicâ— notwithstanding in things pertayning tâ— God Princes might be subiect to thâ— high-Priest for spiritual crimes tenâ—ding to the ouerthrow of Religionâ— might be deposed And in my opinion it is want oâ— iudgment in them that would bâ— thought friends to Kings to stir thâ— stories of the old TestameÌ„t which for one high Priest desposed by a King withoâ—t cleere approbation of the â—act yeeldeth two soueraigne Princes deposed by the high Priest and their deposition warranted by the holy Ghost Did not Iehoida high-Priest depose Athalia Queene pronounce sentence of death vpon her and in â—er roome make Ioas King Did not Azarias high-Priest cast King Ozias out of the Temple depriue him of gouernment for his presuâ—ptuous vsurping the Priestly office to offer incâ—nâ—e to the Lord What needed Theodidact to prouoke Papists to bring forth these examples for the Popes authority two for one and such as he to aunswere theÌ„ is driuen to very hard shiftâ— What he saith concerning Athalia that she was not lawfull Queene but an vsurper he neither proueth nor is it very probaâ—ble She came blodily vniustly to the Crown but this doth not coÌ„uince that she was not afterward righful Queen They who
himselfe Many who now haue Kings and their maiestiâ—s most frequent in their mouth still â—arbor we may feare the same affectiâ—n in their hartes to be freed from theÌ„ Yea some Puritanes of the last Parlament in their discontented meetings were bold to propose the changing of the gouernment of the Realme â—rom Monarchy into Democracy Nor may such menâ— that haue been once taynâ—ed with this Conâ—storiall affection be therfore trusted because they are content to take vpon them the dignity of Bishops wherein they may dissemble by their owne doctrine retayning it not as a sacred but as a temporall office from the Prince and vsâ— it to set vp the discipline These couert enemies of Kings want not their Confederates in France whose mindes and desires Turquet a famous French Protestant expresseth in his booke written in commendatioÌ„ of Democracy aboue Monarchy nor in Holland to which â—his French Democratist Turquet dediâ—ated his aforesayd booke as to men â—llready made blessed by this kind of gouernment and fittest instruments â—o bring the same into the rest of reformed Countries Of these enemies oâ— Monarchy so combined togeather so neighbouring vpoÌ„ vs so subtile as they lye hiddeÌ„ vnder rocheâ—s corner caps in the shape of Bishops and their adherents we haue more need to take heed then of the Pope who is further off his cause not popular his party not like to preuaile by force his followers rather ready to dye then they wil disseÌ„ble their Religion as these others do Philanax I perceaue by your discourse that more treachery against Kings may be couched in these plausible discourses then I could euer haue imagined The Troians were not wise that trusted the guifts of the Grecians nor can I thinke it policy to rest secure of the bookes or writings which those that once were Puritans publish to flatter the state or the Prince pretending affection to soueraignty which their Religion doth so mightily and so intrinsecally oppugne I feare that as within the Troian horse armed enemies lurked so vnder this new deuised allegiance â—â—aytors lye hidden who when they â—â—e their time wil shew themselues like â—o many firebrands to incense the â—eople against Kings that challenge â—uch infinite and hatefull authority Aristobulus You feare not without cause yf you â—onsider that by this deuise the authors â—herof who would â—ule themselues aâ—one do nothing but practise the Maâ—hiauilian meanes to attayn therunto They seek to seperate the King from â—hose whose loue may stand him in most steed The foure propositions beâ—ore set downe make him enter into oâ—ious competency with foure Aduerâ—aries The first breeds him a quarrell with the Common wealth from whom he will not haue his power deâ—iued The second puts him into conâ—ention with the Church to whose â—irection and censures he wil not haue â—is Crowne subordinate The third â—rings him into hatred of mankind by â—hallenging an irresistable power to â—yranize vpon man at his pleasure The â—ourth conteynes an open â—trife with God for precedence requiring of thâ— Common wealâ—h in case they cannoâ— enioy both that they be content tâ— want rather God then their King Anâ— these quarrells are moued vpon weakâ— titles and claymes grounded on doctrines either vncertayne or apparantly false and so odious as were theâ— true yet were it not fit to discussâ— them in vulgar Treatises Philanax I see these doctrines are odious anâ— I nothing doubt but they are likewisâ— vngrounded yet I desire that you wiâ— seuerally shew both these things in euery one of the foure propositions thaâ— I may be better instructed to discoueâ— the treacherous entendments of thesâ— counterfeit friendes of Maiesty Aristobulus I will do my endeauour to satisfy your request First I will examine the foure aforesaid Propositions which done I meane to speake a word concerning the Oath which Theodidact buildeth vpon them as vpon foure â—â—llers And to beginne with the first â—â—at the king hath power from God only indeâ—endently of the Common wealth â—ecause this is the ground of all his diâ—course and of the other three I will â—ore fully shew the vnsoundnes thereâ—f that the world may see that Theodiâ—â—ct as either a most vnkillfull Archiâ—ect that layes so weake a principle of â—he building he pâ—eâ—eds to raise to the â—kye or a subtill Arch-traytor purâ—osely placing the Soueraignty of Kings which he desires may fall vpon â— most ruinous foundation Three be the wayes by the which â—en come to be Kings popular electiâ—n lawfull conquest Gods personall â—ppointment spâ—cially reuealed I say â—pecially reuealed for I nothing doubt â—ut Kings by the two other titles be made by Gods speciall prouidence The title of election depends on mens â—artes The title of Conquest vpon â—attailes which are two things most â—ncertaine and their successe only in Gods hand who bestoweth popular â—auour and victory in warre on whom â—e will For this reâ—son it is sayd that Kings raign by him that he placeth theÌ„ in their throne ruleth in the Kingdome of men giueth it to whome soeuer he please not that hâ— maketh Monarches without secoÌ„dary causes but because these secondary causes worke not but by the speciall direction of his handâ— Wherefore the titles of Election and Conquest be speâ—cially from God though not only immediatly from him as is the third clayme when God by speciall reuelation declares his will to haue some certayne person King as he did Saul and Dauid Philanax You omit Succession which is a clayme to the Crowne Aristobulus Succession in bloud is not a primâ— and originall title but a meanes to deriue to posterity these three fornamed claymes from Auncestors that first enioyed them none of which titles do sufficiently institute a person Kingâ— without the consent of common-wealth When a King is made by eleâ—â—ion the case is cleere but the Conâ—ueror seemes to come to the crowne â—gainst the Commonwealths will In â—eed the right of Conqueror he may â—aue will they nil they yet Royall â—uthority ouer them he cannot haue â—ithout their graunt The right of â—awfull Conquest binds the state conâ—uered to make the conquerour their King vpon iust conditions which he â—ay prescribe heauy or hard according â—o the quantity of their offence Yf â—hey refuse to yield he hath the right â—f the sword to force them not the â—ight of Prince to gouerne them till â—hey consent This consent being â—ielded then there begins a new Soâ—iety and Commonwealth compacted â—f â—onquerors and the people conâ—uered and the Prince of the conqueâ—ing side becomes Kinge to gouerne â—hem both according to the lawes and â—onditions agreed vpon which condiâ—â—ons if he neglect he is no lesse subâ—â—ct and corrigible by the Common-â—ealth then Kings made by eleâ—tion When God personally appoints any one to be Kinge as he did Saul Dauid neither then haue Kings powâ—er immediatly and only from God God is sayd to haue made Saul anâ— Dauid Kings because he eternallâ— decreed they should be Kings in duâ— tyme reuealed
in the hands of the Consulâ— swore allegiance fealty to the comâ—monwealth and when he made thâ— Pretor to gouerne in his name according to the ceremony deliuering the naked sword sayd to him Vse this sword for me if I gouerne iustly iâ— otherwise vse it against me By whâ—ch resignation both of state and life into the Common-wealthes hands he more secured them both then any enforced Oath that he held the Crowne from God only could haue done Philanax You haue shewed the first proposition of Theodidact to be neyther a solid ground of soueraignty nor a doctrin apt to nourish in subiects minds affection to their Kings I desire you wold passe to the examination of the second that Kings haue no Superior that may call him to account or punâ—sh him but God alone Aristobulus Heere Theodidact goeth forward in building the soueraignty of Kings â—ither vpon manifest falshood or totâ—ering vncertaineties That the King â—ath no superior but God alone that â—ay punish him all learned men geâ—erally Papists Puritans Proâ—estants â—eny Philanax I do much wonder that you say Protestants â—each thâ—t the Kinge may â—e sentenced and punished by any man â—pon earth I thinke you meane Puriâ—ans not our Protestants that proâ—esse to follow the Religion established â—y Parlament Aristobulus I meane Protestants that are eneâ—ies of Puritans and conformable to â—he state and to increase your wondring I add that howsoeuer the word Supreme Gouernour and Head of the Church go currant in England yet in â—ense our Deuines giue our Kinge no greater authority in causes Ecclesiasticall then Papists do I desire not to be â—eleeued vnlesse I make what I haue â—ayd euident by the testimonies of them that haue lately written aboâ—â— this argument First concerning the verâ— title they say the King hath no any spirituall Ecclesiasticall power aâ— aâ—l his power sayth doctor Morton noâ— Bishop of Chester is but corporall and caâ— go no â—urther then the body He hath saytâ— M. Burhill no iurisdiction in the Church eyâ—ther â—or the inward oâ— outward Court his poweâ— is meere temporall and laicall nor in it selâ— spirituall though the matter and obiect thereâ—â— be spirituall such power and no greater saytâ— M. Richard Tomson then Iewes Infidelâ— and Turkes haue ouer the Christian Churcâ— within their dominions Secondly concerning Controuersies of fayth the Deane of Lichfielâ— doctor Tooker disclaymeth as an imâ—pudent slaunder that the Church oâ— England holdes the King to be their primaâ— or head or iudge of Controuersies about faitâ— and Religion To the Apostles Christ gaue poweâ— to gather Councells and to define solemnly thâ— Churches doubts The sentence of Councell sayth M. Richard Harris hath without thâ— King the force of an ecclesiasticall law the King addes thereunto corporall penalty M. Morton â—â—yth that Imperiall and Kingly authority in â—â—irituall causes reacheth no further then as it â—â—longeth to outward preseruation not to the â—ersonall administration of them neyther doth â—â—e King challenge nor subiects condescend vnto â—ore But most cleerly M. Barlow late â—ishop of Lincolnâ— The King sayth he in â—ontrouersies about fayth hath not iuâ—icium definitium sentence dâ—finitiue to â—â—scerne what is sound in â—â—â—inity but when the â—hurch hath determined matters of fayth he â—ath iudicium executiuum sentence exeâ—utiue to commaund the professing therof â—ithin his Kingdomes And is not this the very doctrine â—f Papists and that doctrine which â—â—rmerly our Arch-bishop Bancroâ—t reâ—ected with great scorne as disgraceâ—ull to Kings making them but Carâ—â—fices Ecclesiae the executioners of the Churches will and pleasure Thirdly concerning the offices of â—his power they teach the King hath no â—ower to vse any censure or to cast any out of â—he Church by sentence but his office is to punish â—hem with corporall chastisement on whom Bishops haue laid their censures The King doth â—ot make or vnmake Bishops they are made by the Bishops of the Kingdone as by them they aâ—â— desposed and vnmade The King hath right tâ— name and present persons to benefices as other lay men of lower conditioÌ„ haue but benefices eiâ—ther with cure or without cure great or little he neither doth nor euer did bestow much lesse the ecclesiasticall dignities as the Bishopricks Arch-Bishopricks of his Kingdome Fourthly concerning the Kings sudordination to Bishops Doctor Barlow highly commendeth the saying of Ambrose Bishops in matters concerning faith are to iudge of Emperors not Emperors of Bishops The Deane of Lichâ—eild saith that the King is and with Valentinian Emperor doth acknowledge himselfe the sonne and pâ—pill of the Church and the scholler of the Bishops What more do papists require Can he then iudg teach his Fathers Iudges and Maisters in those thinges wherein he is their sonne pupill and scholler Finally M. Burhill saith that the King supâ—eme gouernour of the Church may by his Bishops be cast out of the Church VVhat Ambrose did lawfully to Theodosius our Bishops may do lawfully to the King â—or the like offence And what did Ambrose to Theodosius He cast him by sentence out of the Church he stood ready to keepe him out by force and called him Tyâ—ant â—o his face he forced him to eâ—act a temporall law concerning the â—xecution of the sentence in matter of â—ife and death he commanded him out of the quire or the place of Priests sent him into the body of the Church to pray with laymen And may the Bishop of Canterbâ—â—y lay the same punishments on his Mâ—iesty yea saith the Bishop of Ely perchaunce the Pope may excoÌ„municate the Kinge depriue him of the common goods of the Church Doe you see to how many censures Protestants make the King subiect Truly I see not how any ReligioÌ„ doth or can make Kings more absolute and subiect to fewer Superiors then Papists doe The Puritan will haue them subiect to the Pastor of euery parishe that hath a Consistory as our Bishop Bancroâ—t sayth They banish one Pope and admit a thousand The Protestant makes them obnoxius to the censure of Bishops without any restraynt wheras the Romanists out of respect to the Maiesty of Kings reserue the power of censuring them â—o the supreame Pastor But to returne to Theodidact you seâ— he keepeth his custome to ground alâ—legiance due to Kings vpon doâ—ctrines eyther questionable or 〈◊〉 denyed of all sides his second propoâ—sition that the Kinge is free from alâ— punishment that maÌ„ may inflict beinâ— rather more vncertaine then hiâ— first that Kings hâ—â—e their power only froâ— God Philanax It seemeth by your discourse thaâ— Theodidact makes Kinges more absoluâ—â—â— then other Protestants doe teacheth against them that the King may noâ— be excommunicated or cast out of thâ— Church For he sayth that the Kinge iâ— free from all punishment that man can inflict excommunication without doubt is a great punishment Ministers withâ—out question are men Aristobulus It is hard to say what Theodidaâ—â—
And without doubt by this their familiar acquaintance with the word part of the horror against the action is lost Which may be the cause that where speach against the Pops authority for deposing of Kings hath been rifest most vulgar those Countries for practise against the life of their Kinges haue been most vnfortunate Whereas Spayne hath seene no such tragicall practise nor any attempt thereoâ— but hath enioyed a longe happy peace where the questions how to proceede with Tyrants are freely permitted to the schooles without any popular declamations agaynst Scholasticalâ— opinioÌ„s in this poynt Philanax I must confesse that I haue been my selfe much deceaued in my expectation about the sucâ—esse of Papists in this controuersy When I considered the circumstances of the contention the doctrine impugned not gratefull to Princes not so cleerly decided in their Church by some of their writers denied the person impugning by sword and penne a Monarch mighty learned beloued euen of Popish Potentates and this at a tyme of great aduantage vpon the gunpowder treason which was vrged as a sequell of this doctrine that euen the greatest fauorers therof seemed fearfull These circumstances made me think that Pâ—pery would receaue a great blow and that his Maiesty would draw the whole Church to be of his opinion What the successe hath been we see you haue shewed I could wish the Controuersy might not haue further progresse be now buried in silence that posterity may not say that Rome grew by his Maiesties opposition against it that this point of her authority was made renowned by victory ouer him what the Papists before did doubtfully defend the bloud of their Martyrs suffering vnder King Iames made certaine knowne illustrious And peace concluded about the silencing of this controuersy might be the beginning of an vniuersall agreement with that Sea seeing other doctrinall controuersies by discussion be brought to that yssue that as I haue heard some learned intelligent persons auerre a calme consultation void of priuate interest and animosity might soone end them Aristobulus This peace were much to be wished nor is it safe to mantaine strife with that Sea but vpon vnauoidable occasions And this is the fifth and last thinge which I wish you would seriously ponder and not wonder that this counsell should be suggested by mee that am no Paâ—â—st The knowne bad successe that Kings and Princes haue still had in their opposicions against the Romane Church may mooue sufficiently all faithfull Counsailors though not of the Popes Religion neuer if they may choose to engage their Soâ—craignes in such quarrelles Arioch the Ammonite Prince could tell Holosernes out of experience that his power and force would not be able to subdue the Iewes that in the end he would be repelled with disgrace yet he was not a Iew in ReligioÌ„ The like aduise Amonâ— Counsailors that were heathens gaueâ— him to desist in his quarrell against Mardochaus the Iew Thou canst not say they resist him he being of the stock of the Iewes but shalt fall beâ—ore him It was noted that when Octauâ—aâ— and Antony were youthes still in their games Octauian had the best wherupon a prudeÌ„t frend gaue Antony warning in ciuill controuersies neuer to encounter him Thou art said he more noble then he more eloquenâ— and better qualified yet I see cleerly his Genins is stronger theÌ„ thine if thou try the forâ—une of warre with him he will doubtles be Conquerour What the cause may be why it shold be so who knows but experieÌ„ce now a thousand and six hundred years oldâ— shewes that this is theâ— fate and felicity of that Sea to conquer with their patience and bring vndâ—â— subiection into nothing all the opponents against their doctrine or their authority The Roman Emperors for 300â— yeares together bloudily oppugned Christian Râ—ligâ—on but principally the Roman Sea in so much as thirty Bishops therof were martyred and the persecuting Emperors as S. Cyâ—rian saith were more greeued that a new high Priest was placed in that Sea then that a new Prince was chosen set vp against them What was the successe For those three Centuries of yeares scarce any Emperour that persecuted them can be named that deriued the Empire to a third heire or dyed not an vnfortunate death and in the end Constantine their Successor submitted the Empire to the obedience of the Roman Bishop wherin the Empeâ—ors that followed him contynued Afterward soâ—e Christian Emperors begaÌ„ to quarrell with the Church about the priuiledgeâ— and immunities of the Clergy specially Valentinian the third and the succeeding Emperors of the West Did they preuaile In their daies the westerne Empire began to decay The Franks tooke to theÌ„ France the Saxons Britanny and VVandalls Asrick the Visigothes Spaine the Gothes Italy â— which â—oone after were made Chriâ—â—â—ans and submitted their Kingdomes to the Pope and their Kings professed to receaue their Crownes authority from him Who knoweth not how pittifully the Easterne Emperors and the Patriarches of Constantinople vexed thâ— Pope for many ages which their quarrell they neuer would giue ouer till finally they fell into the miserable bondage slâ—uery of the Tuâ—ke wherin at this present without hope of remedy they grone What successe to omit many other experiences had the German Caesars that stroue with the Pope for the inuestiture of Bishops by staffe ringe Henry the 4. excommunicated and deposed by Gregory the 7. vpon that cause prospered for a while which this treatiser sets downe to encourage Princes to follow his example but he concealeth how in the end in punishment of his rebellion against his spirituall Father as Papists thinke he was deposed by his owne Sonne put in prison whence escaping he gathered forces was defeated brought to such want as he sued to be Sexton in a Churcâ—â— and serue Priests Masse who had most cruelly vexed the high Priest of Christians many yeares together Not admitted to that office he turned himself to begge of laymen in lamentable manner crying Haue mercy on me at least you my friendes for the hand of the Lord hath touched mee and so full of misery repentance and anguish of mind he pined away to death The newes whereof was receaued with generall ioy of all Christians And his Sonne though for a while he trode the steps of his Fathers disobedience yet finally he yielded vp his right in possession whereof the Roman Bishop is at thiâ— day Wherein not only the successe which Popes had against so potent Aduersaries as was Henry the 4. who fought more battaileâ— then euer did Iulius Caesar but their courage and confidence also was admirable Neither ought any discreete Protestant trust Theodidacts relatioÌ„ of HidelbraÌ„ds fainting in the quarrell taken out of Sigebert a partiall Monke seeing Papists bring 50. Historians that contradict him These whose fidelity can with no rea 〈…〉 called in question relate that he ended his life full of coÌ„stancy
GOD AND THE KING OR A DIALOGVE Wherein is treated of Allegiance due to our most Gracious Lord King Iames within his Dominions WHICH by remouing all Controuersies and causes of Dissentions and Suspitions bindeth Subiects by an inuiolable band of Loue Duty to their Soueraigne Translated out of Latin into English Printed at Cullen M. DC XX. To the Reader THE former Dialogue set forth vnder thiâ— same Title GOD AND THE KING the persons of the same being Theodidactus and Philalethes the first signifiyng One taught of God the other A louer of Truth did â—eed explication in diuers poynts aswell in regard of the verity of the discourse as also for the more safty both of Kings and their Kingdomes VVherfore it was thought good that in this present Dialogue two other persons should treate of the same subiect Aristobulus that is A good CouÌ„sellour and Philanax A Louer of Kinges of which the one wisheth all good vnto Kinges the other suggesteth what he iudgeth best for their State And so in few wordes gentle Reader thou hast the scope of both Dialogues Farewell GOD AND THE KING Philanax YOv are well met Aristobulus your countenance and gesture import that your thoughtes are much busied What may bâ— the occasion of these Meditations Aristobulus I haue lately perused a short Treatise intituled GOD AND THE KING the Author whereof vndertaketh to shew the groundes foundations of royall Soueraignty and of the Oath of Allegiance Philanax Why should the perusall of the Treatise cause such admiration in you I am sure you bâ—ing a Professour of the Ghospell are noâ— of their number that seeke to depresse Kingly power or thinke much that Kings should oblige their subiects to them by Oathes Aristobulus My professioâ— and my deedes declare sufficiently my dutifull affection to Kings my high esteeme of their authority my detestatioÌ„ of all treason hollownes and insincerity towardes them I approue the doctrine of this Dialoguâ— that vnder the pious and reuerend appellations of Father and Mother are comprized not only our naturall Parents but likewise all higher Powers and especially such as haue soueraigne authority as Kings Princes who more expresly then any Gouernours represent the person maiesty of one God ruling the whole world and are his substitutes lieutenants euery one within his owne Kingdome The subiect may not touch his soueraigne with any hurtfull touch nor stretch out his hand against his sacred person nor aâ—fright nor disgrace him by cutting the lapp â—f his garment not hurt him in word no not â—o much as in thought He must discharge his â—anifold duties towards him by payinge â—ribute for his regall supporte by fighting his â—attailes with Ioab aduenturing his life with Dauid to vanquish his enimies Reuealing with â—eligions Mardochaeus treasonable designeâ—ents against him by powring out praâ—ers â—nd supplications for his wellfare by esteeming and â—onouring him from the harte and out of conscience as the annointed oâ— the Lord Gods holy Ordinance and Minister and as a God vpon earth These doctrines I allow and these duties towardes Princes whosoeuer infringeth either by tumults or seditions against his state or by treacherous and violent attempts against his person deserue as violators of Gods will contemners of natures â—aw and enemies to the good of their Countrey to be punished persecuted â—o death by sword and fire Philanax Seeing then that the Treatise you â—peake of doth so fully declare the duty of Allegiance to the Kinge what â—roubleth you therein that your counâ—enance discouereth dislâ—ke Aristobulus To commend allegiance in generall termes simply and playnly conceaued is most alowable necessary in these times But bold or rather desperate Treatises such as this is that disclose the mysteries of Regall Prerogatiue which as his Maiesty well noteth ought not to be searched into that ground the authority of Kings so necessary for mankinde vpon doubtfull curiosâ—ties that moue questions about depositions both disgracefull to Maiesty and odious to the subiects such Treatises I say doe more harme then good and without doubt the first Authors of such conceipts be secret enemies to Kingly gouernment and by this stratageme would craftily vndermine what hitherto in vayne they haue assaulted openly Philanax I am persuaded the Treatise you mention was not written by any Papist nor that any of that generation â—ad their hand in it Who then may we think be these vnderminers of Monarchy you speak of Aristobulus I would to God it were hard to name them or that euery one could not point with his finger at that professioÌ„ which from her cradle hath euer been a mortall enemie 〈◊〉 Kings That the first planters of the Ghospell in this age rooted the same in rebellion and in hatred to Monarchy neitheir wee nor any of their best frends can deny Our late Arch-bishop excuseth them that their zeale was very greate the light of the Ghospell sayth he then first appearing vnto them so dazeled their eyes that they did not well consider what they did Without doubt so it was and so it will euer be where the pure light as they call it of this Ghospell shineth and zeale therof feruently burneth there can be no assured allegiance to the Prince This I confesse is no small blemisâ— to the Religion which I would conceale did not loue to his Maiesty force me to speak And the reason why it must needes be so is euident A true spirit zealous in ReligioÌ„ can neuer be quiet in the busines of sâ—luation and in questions and Controuersies of Faith â—â—ll he find some ground infallible whereon he may rest The Papist holdes that the Popes sentence specially in generall Councels is the infallible decider of Controuersies vpon which he repoâ—â—th his conscience And by submitting euery one his priuate iudgment to the sentence of a supreme Iudge they gayne peace and vâ—ity among themselues and their Iudge still when he defines being as they pretend assisted by Gods spirit they are secured from errour An easy and sweet way to end Controuersies had it pleased God to haue appointed it wherein verity and charity mâ—et Iustice doctrine I say iust with Gods word kisseth with peace and Christians might haue enioyed what S. Paul so highly commendeth charity of â—â—uth But our Authors constantly affirme that since the Apostles God grâ—unted no such priuiledge to any Pastor nor wold bestow so great blessing on his Church as to haue perpetually such a visible gouernour to decide her doubtes nimium vobis Romana propago visa potens superi propria haec si dona fuissent Wâ—erfore by the conseÌ„t of the Churches which we call reformed the spirit of God deciding Controuersies which Papists tied to the Pope and his Councells was giuen to euery man that should attend to the spirit speaking in Scriptures A course which pleased much the common people in the beginning persuading them that they had been blinded and wronged by the Pope taking from them
together with the vse of Scriptures their authority to iudge definitions of the Church by Scriptures The deuisers of this way seemed to haue great zeale of the truth but were not carefull to prouide for peace And so in practise this deuise begot a multitude of Sects and Religions one against another that many weary of all began to thinke it were better men should be vnited in error then thus mortally diuided in Truth A meane was deuised to decide Controuersies by nationall Synods that are confessed may erre but the Ciuil magistrate as our chief Deuines teach as being President in them is to compell his subiects by the sword to imbrace those doctrines that be determined be they true or fals For this course say they was appointed by God who thought it better in the eye of his vnderstanding that sometimes an erroneous definitiue sentence should preuaile then that strifes should haue respite to grow and not come speedily to some end Heere desire of peace concord may seeme to haue made these men lesse zealous of the Truth then behooued them So it opened a gappe specially in England to prophanes irreligiosity which is to be iust of the Kings Religion whatsoeuer it be or rather of none A salue for this sore hath been inueÌ„ted that subiects ought to obey their Princes Lawes and definitions when they haue only probabilities against them not when they haue necessary and demonstratiue reasons which discharge the conscience and giue liberty to resist This caueat and salue for Truth sets the wound of dissention againe a bleeding Sects in the world are now allmost infinite for number amongest which not one is found that pretendeth not cleere and euident demonstration and proofe from holy Scripture for their contrary and repugnant opinions And who shall iudg in this contradiction and confusion whose reasons are necessary and demonstratiue The arguments which we think demonstratiâ—e moue Papists nothing at all and arguments which we iudg of no force Puritans as Archbishop Bancroft writeth of them take to be so vrgent that if euery hayre of their head were a seuerall life they wold giue them all in the cause This controuersy therfore whose reasons are demonstratiue and whose are not is the greatest of all others nor is there any way to decide it in our churches besides the sword of the temporall Prince Princes therfore for conseruation of peace must keep the spirit in awe practising power infallible in deedes which they dare not challenge in wordes This is the cause of the secret emnity betweene power of Kings and feruour of our Ghospell The Prince can neuer be assured of our Gospellers by the Principles of their Religion that their zeale to the Truth will not trouble the peace of his Kingdome nor Ghospellers of the Prince that his loue of temporall peace will not compell them to trust to his deceaueable definitions Whence it is manifest that so longe as the one shal be zealons and feruent to follow and preach what by light of the spirit they conceaue to be in Scâ—ipture occasions cannot be wanting to the other that will force him to vse his power to curbe their liberty Which power so long as he shal vsurpe so long as he will be Prince and Protestant he must needes vsurpe let him neuer expect that Ghospellers can loue his gouernment though they may flatter in outward shew Those men had no doubt the pure spirit of our Ghospell who professed that except they might haue the reâ—ormation they desired they would neuer be subiect to mortall man Looke vpon the first erecting of our Religion in Germany France Flanders Sweâ—eland Denmarke and Scotland you shall find that the Ghospell went not so fast vp but Kings and their authority went as fast downe What Bullenger writeth of Anabaptistâ— was the true course of our Reformers They began with Bishops pulling them from their seates they ended with Kings casting them froÌ„ their Thrones Books haue been written of this argument by no Papists that shew their practises and doctrines to be in the highest degree iniurious to Kings Luthers inuectiues I omitt not to pollute your eares Caluin is more modest yet so bould with Kinges as to write that when they resist the Ghospell they are not to be obeyed but rather we ought to sâ—it it in their faces This is nothing to that which HottomaÌ„ Beza Goodman Knox Vrsinus Buchanan to forbeare the naming of others innumerable haue writteÌ„ wherby they make Maiesty subiect to the peoples pleasure no more sure of his state then wethercocks that must turnâ— with the wind Vt sumat vt ponat secures Arbitrio popularis aurae What thinke you of these their propositions following Yf Princes be tyrants against God and his Truth their subiects are freed from their oath oâ— Allegiance The people are greateâ— then the King of greater authority The people haue the same power oâ—uer the King that the King hath oueâ— any one person The people haue right to bestow the Crown at their pleasure As the patient may choose the phisitiaÌ„ he likeâ—â— best reiect him at his pleasure so the people in whose free choice at the beginning it was to be vnder kings or no may when they be weary of their bad gouernment cast him from his Office into prison into irons put him to death and set whome they please to gouerne in his place Kings haue their authority from the people and the people may take it away againe as men may reuoke their letters of Attorney Yf kings without feare transgresse Gods Lawes they ought no more to be taken as magistrats but be examined accused condemned and punished as priuate transgressors When magistrats do not their duties God giueth the sword into the peopleâ— hand from â—e which no person King Queene 〈◊〉 Emperor is exempt being Idolater 〈◊〉 must dye the death These and the â—â—ke positions haue been inuented by â—â—e zealous professors of our Religion â—he same or worse were renewed and â—ttered by the feruerous reformers that â—roue for discipline in Queene Eliz. â—ayes that as a worthy prelat writes All the Popiâ—â— traitors that hitherâ—o haue written and all the Geneâ—ian Scottish Reformers come not neere â—hem for malicious and spiteful taunts â—or rayling and bitter tearmes for disâ—aineful and contemptuous speaches â—gainst Prince Bishops Counsailors â—ll other that stand in their way Their â—ecret practises to set vp by som meane â—r other sweete or violent the said â—isciplin haue neuer been interrupted â—r remitted as he doth particularâ—y relate beginning at the yeere 1560. â—o the yeere 1591. when was practised â—hat most blasphemous and barbarous â—reason of their counterfait Iesus-Christ Hacket and his two Prophets â—f mercy and vengeance who would â—aue planted the discipline by depriuing the Queene and murthering thâ— nobles that stood against it of
whicâ— the cheefest Pretendents in that reforâ—mation had notice at loast in confuâ—â— and in generall as the said Archbishoâ— affirmeth and did secreâ—ly conniuâ— thereunto fauouring no doubt in haâ—â— a popular state where Church-doctrine and discipline is receaued reiected by voices In which gouernment these fiery Ghospellers as hiâ— Maiesty calleth them beeing comâ—monly men of sharpe wits and ready tongues high minded and of working spirits might beare great sway euery one rule as King and Pope in his parish Since that time these men haue been in shew both for doctrine practise more moderate specially â—ince his Maiesties happy raigne and that some of them haue been aduaunced to dignities Now they are become the forwardest in shew â—or defence of Allegiance they speake most against the Papists that hold Kings to be deposable in some cases They extoll Royall authority aboue the skyes I can iâ— Charity beleeue that some of them meane as they professe yet wisedome giues leaue to feare recâ—nciled emenies Poison no where lurketh more securely then in hony Their present doctrine carrieth outwardly a shew of friendship to Kings but â—o will â—ooke into the ground shall finde it dangerous to them and more pernicious then the former of Caluin Goodman Beza Knox Buchanan and others â—heir predecessors and Maisters The â—umme of this their doctrine is conâ—eyned in the Treatise intituled God â—he King The Authour whereof had â—o reason to tearme himselfe Theodiâ—act that is Taught of God seing he speaâ—eth diuers thinges that the spirit of God could not suggest vnto him He â—ndertaketh the proofe of foure proâ—ositions The first is That Kings haue â—uthority immediately only from God the Church and people not being any thing in the â—uist thereof This is the fundamentall â—â—one whereon is built the second â—hat Kings haue no superior on earth to chaâ—â—ise and punish them The third is That â—either Tyranny nor Heresy nor Apostacy can release subiects of their ObedieÌ„ce The fourth That Kings may neither be deposed nor resisted but by teares and prayers though they should be so tyrannous prophane as to endeauour to oppresse the whole Church and Commonwealth at once and vtterly to extinguish the light of Christian Religion Philanax These speaches may be disgustfull to Subiects and sound vncouâ—hly in their â—ares but doctrine that doth so magnify Kings I see not how it may be thought pernicious to them Aristobulus Kinges are not to regard so much how great and glorious as how grounded be the titles that are bestowed on them seeing incredible praises giuen to men do oftentimes abate the credit of their deserued commendation Some Ghospellers as a iudicious Protestant complaines attributing to the holy Scripture more then it caÌ„ haue the incredibility of that hath caused euen those things which in deede it hath most aboundantly to be the lesse reuerently esteemed The same we may â—are will happen to the authority of Kinges And the danger of such flatâ—ering speculations as this Dialogist â—eachâ—th is so much the greater to the Soueraigne whilest they extoll him â—boue measure to the state of absolute Lord God vpoÌ„ earth as it is hatefull â—o the subiect to see himself abased to â—eruile abhorred â—â—ptiuity put to â— more miserable condition then the â—ondage of slaues For slaues to speak nothing of humane lawes that haue â—ppointed limits to their miseries â—aue some rightes and liberties by the â—aw of nature inuiolable which if â—hey be able they may defend by force â—gainst euen their owne Maisters that shall violently and vniustly inuade â—hemâ— Such liberty they haue to marry â—nd propagate humane kind to enioy â—ife so longe as they haue done noâ—hing worthy of death but principally â—o worship God their maker and suâ—reme Lord. But this new doctrine of Princely absolute Soueraignty set â—owne in the Treatise mentioned â—akes the Common-wealth so miseâ—able and the people such bondmen to their Prince that they may not defenâ—â— their nationall freedomes how iust necessary soeuer nor the liberties anâ— rightes that nature hath bequeaâ—â—eâ— euen vpon slaues But that if thâ— Prince wanton in cruelty should keeâ— men by force froÌ„ marrying so to bring the Common-wealth to vtter deâ—olation in one age â—r if not hauing patiâ—ence to attend that lingring consumpâ—tion of the state he should daily senâ— meÌ„ by multitudes like heards of sheep or oxen to the slaughter or if out oâ— a desire his subiects may perish eternally he should seek vtterly to extinguish the doctrine of saluation within his Realmes In these cases I say oâ— the like of extreamest necessity and most hostile inuasion according to thâ— doctrine of this Dialogist they may not lift vp so much as their finger against his attempts nor ioyne with any power vpon earth that would releeue them Philanax I see plainly that this doctrine is very odious in it self and you set it forth to the vttermost Aristobulus I say no more then his owne worâ—es import nor haue described tyraÌ„ny â—ore truly then he hath done in his Dialogue And I know so well there is â—o cause to feare the practise of this â—octrine by his gratious Maiesty that I would not haue said thus much but to â—hew how odiously â—nemies of Royalty may and will exagitate this Concluâ—ion when such discourses shal be for â—he aduantage of popularity Now â—hey write and cause Treatises to be â—ublished by authority which when â—ime shall serue they may vse to make â—is Maiesty hatefull By the like straâ—ageme the Puritans of Scotland ouerâ—hrew his Maiestiâ—s Mother When â—hey had barbarously slayne the Kinge â—er husband they importunely vrged â—eâ— alledging it was necessary for the maintenance of her state and life to marry with the Earle of Bothwell â—oncealing from her that he had been â—heef actor in the murther The marâ—iage was no sooner concluded but â—hey diuulged the hatefullnes therofâ— thence seeking to persuade the world she had been consenting to her husbands death And so what with defaâ—matory libells abroad what witâ— their turbulent declamations at homâ— they made her odious they tooke from her the Crownâ— they tossed her froÌ„ miâ—sery to misery till finally they broughâ— hâ—r to lay her head on the blocke to bâ— cut off by the comon Executioner â— hope his Maiesties happy raygne shalâ— neuer see commotion in this state yeâ— if any such tumult happen and human things are vncertain I do not feare to be found a false Prophet in saying thaâ— this doctrine wil be bitterly exclaimeâ— against and this Treatise I speake ofâ— produced to witnes what desperate allegiance Princes exact and vrged noâ— only against his Maiesty but as a causâ— sufficient to banish Kings out of thâ— Land The late Lord of Canterbury complaynes that in his dayes cantoninâ— of Kingdomes was in many mens mouthes thaâ— men did talke what a notable thing it is to liuâ— in Veniceâ— where euery gentleman liueth witâ— as great liberty as the Duke
ambition be ouerforward to proceed against Princeâ— So that in my opinion Papists take a most mature course and remoue the life of Kings from the temerity of vulgar affections one degree further then any other religion whatsoeuer And seeing mankind with vniuersall consent seeme to allow that some meanes may be vsed for the commonwealths safety against incorrigible and deplored tyrants I do not see that humane wisdome could haue inuented a proceeding more discreet and moderate then this of Papists who that a Prince may be deposed lawfully require First crymeâ— manifest that can no wayes be excused secondly crymes exorbitant tending to the euident ouerthrow of the whole Kingdome thirdly crymeâ— with malice incorrigible leauing no hope of amendment fourthly the publicke and vuiuersall agrement of magistrates and Nobles of the Common-wealth Fiftly that the case be proposed and the deposition approued by their supreme Pastor and his Counsell abroad Finally to preuent popular rashnes they further add that the comonwealth in the execution of the sentence must proceed per modum defensionis non per modum punitionis by way of their owne defence not by way of punishing their Prince And in this their defence they must obserue moderamen inculpatae tutelae that is they must do no more then is precisely necessary for their own defence Wherfore they may not hauing deposed their Prince arraigne him as Puritans teach that being needlesse for their owne safety The King deposed still retaynes a certaine remote right to the Crowne as it were a marke or politike character that discerneth him from meere subiects by reason whereof if he repent of his Apostacy and giue the Commonwealth good security that being againe restored to gouernment he wil rule moderately the Commonwealth may not by taking way his life depriue him of his possibility Philanax Your discourse giueth me great content to see that Papists in their doctrine prouide so carefully for the security of Princes That a King be deposed lawfully they require such a generall consent both domesticall and forraine that it seemes scarce possible that so many should conspire in passion or that any Prince by this doctrine loose his Kingdome that is either friended abroad or beloued at home For if the motion to depose the Prince arise from the Commonwealth the last decision thereof is referred to the Pope and his Counsell that are forrayners and not interessed in the Commonwealthes quarrell Yf the treaty of depoâ—ition begin from the Pope the execution must passe through the hands of the Peeres of the Realme spirituall temporall whose loue to their Prince will resist the Popes sentence if they find the motiue either openly vniust as grounded vpon temporall pretences or not cleerly and apparantly iust as is required in a point of so many consequences Nor do there want examples of Catholicke Kingdomes that haue stood for their Kings when they thought that Popes were moued with humane respects yea I haue noted in the histories I haue perused and much wondred thereat Protestants haue beene more forward and heady to follow the sentence of some Ministers or consistory against their Prince then haue Papists beene in obeying the Popes censures for the deposition of their King that hardly can you name any sentence of deposition that hath been executed and the Prince turned from his Crowne by his Catholike subiects Which difference seeing it cannot spring from any greater reuerence which ProtestaÌ„ts bâ—aâ—e to their spirituall gouernours for it is known they do not so much esteeme their Ministers as the Papists do their Priests it must proceed from this cause that Papists loyall loue to their Prince doth somewhat allay their prompt obedience to the Pope when betweene him and their Prince contentions happen But you haue so discouered the weaknes of Theodidacts arguments that I haue more cause to feare treason then expect reason in his discourses I should haue byn glad if the doctrine that makes Kings in all cases indeposable could haue byn proued by solid and inuincible arguments Aristobulus How solide and inuincible Theodidacts arguments are you may giue a ghesse by this one which he vrgeth very â—arnestly that Christians may not depose Tyrants though neuer so cruell enemies of their Religion because Christ commaundeth theÌ„ to loue their enemies and perâ—â—cutors And verily I could smile to see Theodidact seriously dilate vpon the precept to loue enemies VVe must sayth be loue them with our harts blesse and pray for them with our tongues and do good to them by our actions Yf these duties be to be performed twards priuate men that are our enemies how much more to publicke persons and Potentats of the earth Thus he and much more shewing great want of iudgment thus to trifle in so serious an argument For the precept to loue our enemies to bestow benefits on them vrgeth the Commonwealth to depose tyrants rather then to the coÌ„trary For what greater benefit can Christian charity bestow on tyrants that run headlong to euerlasting perdition then to remoue them from gouernment from the world occasions of synne Without doubt the precept of Charity would bind the Commonweaâ—th to â—tay the damnatioÌ„ of tyrants by deposing theÌ„ did Iustice permit them that are not Superiours to bestow benefits deeds of charity vpon others against their wil. The truth is that this were against Iustice though not against Charity to take by force the scepter from a Prince who abuseth the same only to his owne damnatioÌ„ without endaungering the Commonwealth But if he coÌ„mit synns that tend to the destruction of the state if saith the Chancellour of Paris the great Patron of royall imunity if the Prince doth manifestly obstinatly really vniustly persecute his subiects theÌ„ that Principle of the law of nature taks place violence may be repelled with violence Thus much Gerson and much more which I willingly pretermit nor would I haue said so much but only to shew that it were best not to handle these questioÌ„â— specially in vulgar Treatises and that you may see Theodidacts fraude who loadeth on Kings many new titles that are not so glorious as odious which doe not so much adorne as oppresse and weigh downe Kings by laying vpon them the heauy burthen of popular enuy Such is his fourth proposition which remaynes to be examined that there is no remedy besides teares and prayers that may be lawâ—ully vsed for the defence of the Church against the King though he shold be so tyrannous and prophane as to oppresse the whole Church and vtterly to extinguish the light of Christian Religion Philanax The very sound of this proposition offendeth a Christian â—are nor can I thinke it is gratefull to his Maiesty who would I dare say wish himselfe dead a thousand times rather then such a case shold really happeÌ„ that he shold extinguish the light of Religion so litle delight he takes that men should adore his Royall Dignity vested in these imaginary impieties Nor
the new oath For their standing with such daunger against an oath which they thinke vniust shewes they will not for humane respects sweare but what really they beleeue to be trueâ— nor promise but what they truly meane to performe It may be iustly supposed that these men as they will rather dye then sweare Allegiance which they think not due so they wil loose their liues sooner then neglect the allegiance they haue once sworn And though they cannot frame their consciences to sweare the speculatiue denyall of thâ— Popâ—s authority to depose Princes in some circumstances imaginâ—â—le yet they are ready to sweare that in practise they will stand with the King against â—ll treasons and in al quarrells not openly and vnexcusably vniust Such as persuade his Maiesty to neglect such loyall offer of loue I pray God their trecherous flattery bring him not into occasions that he may need the helpe of such trusty subiects This we see that already the flaterers haue brought him to engage his Honor for the ouerthrow of the Popes authority in this poynt which is the fourth coÌ„sideration that I made promise to present vnto you For I cannot thinke the successe wil be such as might become the enterprise of so great a Monarch Philanax The power to depose Kings at his pleasure which the Pope challengeâ—h so sauoureth of presumption is so odious that his Maiesty needs not feare the successe of so plausible a quarrell Aristobulus This authority hath â—yn now many yeares together impugned and the abiuration thereof vrged vnder griâ—uous penalties What haue we gayned or rather could this doctrine haue more preuailed then by this opposition it hath done Before this stirre I know some learned Papists denyed that authority in the Pope many that held it thought it not a poynt of Faith but the more probable opinion and in France that opinion might scarce be spoken of Now find me a popish Priest that houlds it or thinks that doctrine tollerable in their Church When the matter was vrged in France to haue a like oath enacted did not both Clergy Nobility stand against it When Cardinall Perâ—ns speach for the Popes authority to depose Kâ—nges was printed what Papist durst pâ—t his name to an answere We know that that doctrin forsaken of the Papists of France was forced to fly for succour to his Maiestieâ— pen. Some Papists complayne that we change the state of the question of purpose to make their doctrine odious Which is not that the Pope may depose Princes at his pleasure but in case of necessity But this change of the question to me seemes not so disgraceful to the Pope as to our â—hospell that after so great promises to burne Rome and ouerthrow Popery the heat of al our controuersies worketh vpon this poynt Whether Kings for their Crownes be the Popes tenants at will Would the Pope renounce his right in this point for the rest we would not greatly care to giue ouer When I coâ—sider the late quarrell begun by our King Henry the 8. against the Pope me thinks the successe thereof hath been much like that of the Carthaginians vnder Haniball against the auncient Common wealth of Rome At the first the Carthaginians so farre preuailed as they got most part of Italy from the Romans and fought with them about the walls of Rome Within a while fortune so changed that the Carthaginians were driuen backe into Africke warre wâ—s there maintained that much adoe they had to saue their ownâ— Carthage Our Kings in the beginning stroue with the Pope for supremacy in spiriâ—uaâ—l things many Papists euen Bishops stood with the King that the Pope was in danger to loose his Miter The more that matters were searched into the more did the Popes cause daily preuaile so that not only Papists be now cleerly resolued in that point as in a most notorious truth but also Puritans mislike Princes supremacy and euen Protestants as far as they daâ—e go paring away peeces from it And now the Pope secure of supremacy in spirituall things pretends right to dispose of Crownes when the necessity of Religion shall require it And who seeth not that euen in this controuersy they dayly winne ground Had not we sâ—t our sâ—lues to impugne this authority had not so many books frâ—ught with weak arguments which Papists confâ—te with great shew of truth on their side beene written against it had not Priests lost their liues lay Papists their liuings for it I am perswaded it might haue beene buried in obliuioâ— or at least within their schooles haue beene kept from common peoples â—ares Now persecutioÌ„ hath made the question so famous as it will hardly be forgotten the bloud shed for the affirmatiue part thereof hath printed the same deepe in many mâ—ns conceipts yea the death of men so graue learned and pious hath made some Protestants that hated it before cast vpon it a more fauourable looke Per arma per caedes abipso Sumit opes animumque serro And this is a very remarkable proceeding of Popery different from the course of our Ghospell The light of our Ghospell shined exceeding bright at the first there was no diuision amongest our Ghospellers it stirred vp in mens harts wonderfull zealeâ— that as one noteth out of pure light they did not consider what they did and iâ— their zeale their goods lands children wiues and liues were not greatly deere vnto them With time this light waxed dymmer and dymmer the doctrine lesse certaine they grew into factions and sects and therupon their zeale bâ—came could that now the greatest feare is as oftentimes from one extreme men are prone to fall into the cleane opposite least the supposed cleere shining of truth make men vncerten and not greatly zealous of any Religion at all The Papists contrarywise when controuersies are first raised are very wary and circumspect their censures be not absolute there are commonly diuers opinions amongest them the more that Scriptures Fathers Councells testimonies of antiquity and reasons are examined the more they grow into consent the more resolute and immoueable they become in their doctrine mâ—re zâ—alous one day then another to giue their liues for it This course they hold in the doctrine of the Popes power which in the beginning was taught neither so certainly nor vniuersally nor zealously as now it is and wil be euery day more and more except these controuersies be remoued from vulgar examination which cannot be so long as the oath is vrged seeing such as are to sweare must least they be forsworne search into the certainty of this Truth and read bookes that treat of that argument And when no other inconuenience should ensue of this course this alone might moue the prudent frends of Kings to labour the silencing of this controuersy that the wordes of deposing and murthering Gods annointed which should be buried in the depth of amazement horror come by vulgar disputation to sound familiarly in euery eare
vsing at his death these words Because I haue loued Iustice and hated wickednesse I now dy in banishment Vrbane that succeded Gregory both in office and in zeale against the Emperour being driueÌ„ out of Italy into France hauing so great need of the Kings assistance yet was he so voide of humane respects that at that very time he excommunicated Philip King of France for putting away his true wife and liuing in open incest The Kinge saith an vnpartiall Historian threatned that except Vrbane would restore him to the Church Crowne he wold depart with his whole Kingdome from his obedience the obedience of the Roman Sea yet this moued not that most holy Bishop to relent In fine Philip was faine to yeeld not being able to extort otherwise releasment from excommunication and so religion conscience preuailed ouer thâ— Scepter and the Diademe the inuincible Maiesty and Name of King So admirable for constancy were those Popes that vsed their authority to depose wicked Emperors so free from loue of the world that we may iusâ—ly thinke God fauoured their cause Hâ—â—soeuer their perpetuall good successe for so many ages against all aduersaries though the reason therof be hidden may giue iust cause in my opinion for Kings to be wary how they aduenture their Crownes vpon preuailing against them and how they deuise new oathes of Allegiance that wage warre against the authority of their Sea And this is the last thing which I desire to leaue to be seriously pondered by you that loue the King so I coÌ„clude praying the Lord hartily that as hitherto he hath defended Kingly authority in our great Britany froÌ„ open enemies so now he will defend the same from secret plots and trayterous Treatises which by shew of friendship seek the ouerthrow thereof Philanax I am glad Aristobulus that wee fell into this discourse in which you haue cleerly discryed Theodidacts fraudulent vndermining of Royall Authority The publishers of that booke besides their secret plotting agaynst 〈◊〉 â—oueraignty of Princes seeme likeâ—â—â—â— to haue had an eye to their owne â—uere in the diâ—ulging therof For there being a commaund that this Booke both in publicke and priuate schooles be read to Children of both sexes ech booke sold for six pence which is hardly worth two pence you must needs see a great summe of money that heÌ„ce is yearely made a summe I say so great as doth farre surpasse the custome of the Peter-pence which in old time euery house payed to the Pope Notwithstanding at this their enriching themselues by this deuise I do not so much grieue but I am hartily sory that so many odious vngrounded positions coÌ„cerninâ— Royall Authority that may raise vp horror rather theÌ„ loue of Kinges be instilled into the tender mindes of ChildreÌ„ which afterward when any occasion is giuen may soone turne into hatred But thereof yoâ— haue spoken inough Wherfore I likewise will end with your harty good wishes towardes his Maiesty and our most gracious Prince Charles beseching the Almighty to defend them both and to giue them the spirit of wised 〈◊〉 wherby they may discouer these â—â—â—â—sons hidden with a shew of friendshipp The Printer to the Reader THIS Treatise gentle Reader may seeme written by some English Protestant agaynst some Puritans enemies of Kingly Soueraignity which by them in former times openly impugned they now seeke to ouerthrow by grouÌ„ding the same vpon odious and â—aungerous PositioÌ„s touching the immunity of Tyrants The Authour disputeth the questioÌ„ of this weighty subiect in such moderate stile and manner bringing 〈…〉 ns both solide and not reg 〈…〉 ing with Catholike doctrine that he may be thought to be in opinion Catholike though for modesties sake to the end that this truth might be more pleasingly accepted of Protestants in this worke he discourseth as if he were Protestant And for this reason some Catholike arguments he doth pretermit others he doth not vrge to the vttermost partly for breuityes sake but cheefly because his inteÌ„t is no more then to shew that the new Protestants principles from which they deduce Râ—yall Authority be at the least doubtfull and vncertayne And this he doth cleerly demonstrate and thence concludes that it is against the rules euen of humane policy to forsake the most sure grounds of Soueraigne Power in Kinges whereon Christian Kingdomes relying haue hitherto stood firme and florished vnd 〈…〉 Catholike discipline iust l 〈…〉 and to build the sacred authority of Princes whereon their peoples safety dependes vpon the new vngrounded Doctrines Paralogismes of Scriptures which seemes to haue byn the drift of the former Dialogue For this cause I thought it would not be amisse nor lost labour to put the same in print renewed before hand corrected The title God and the King I would not alter because iâ— two wordes it doth fully put downâ— the Catholike opinion concerning Princes Authority their subiects Allegiance For as this treaâ—ise doth iâ—sinuate three opinions in this poynt now are in EnglaÌ„d The first of PuritaÌ„s who wil haue God without King or else such a King that must depend on the peoples beck 〈◊〉 their ConsistoriaÌ„ Preachers 〈…〉 ose perfidious audacity his â—â—â—esty hath had sufficient experience The second is of Politicians who haue no more Christianity then Parlamentary decrees breath into them These will haue King without God or at least King and God that is God so longe and no longer then the King shall please whome they will haue still obeyed though he go openly about to extinguish the light of Christian Religion The third opinion is of Catholikâ—s whose â—ote is God and the Kingâ— in the first place they worship God in the second the King to whome they giue all Allegiance and subiection as farre as Religion and conscience will permit And this is to giue what is Caesars to Caesar and what is Gods to God Farewell FINIS Dial. God and the Kinge pag. 2. Dial. p. 33. 34. â—peach in the Star-chamber 16.6 Bancroft in the Dangerous poâ—itioÌ„s p. 33. Psal. 84. v. 16. 2. Thessal â— 2 v. 10. Hooker Ecclesiast pol. prefac p. 28. Hooker ibid. p. 29. Suruey of the holy â—iscipline p. 93. (a) Baâ—il Dor. p 40. 41. (b) Knox. histor of the Church of Scot. p. 265. Dang poâ—it p. 11. (c) Sleydan l. 28. l. 22. Oâ—ian Epist. cent 16. p. 566. (d) Cuspin of the Church of France p. 625 Ferres histor p. 588. (e) Osiand ibid. p. 94. (f) Chitrâ—eus in chron p. 71 (g) Fulk answere to the declam of P. â—rarines (h) Dang posit l â— c. â— 4â— seq (i) Suruey of the disc p. 101. (k) Dang poâ—it Suruey and others by D. Bancroft (l) Principes sunt omnium quos terra â—ustinet sâ—ultisâ—imi deterrimi nebulones ToÌ„ 2. Ger. â—en de mag saecul fol. 200. (m) Cal. in Dan. cap. 6. v. 22. (n) Knox to Engl. Scotl. fol. 78. (o) BuchaÌ„ de iâ—â—e Reg.
Empire was so mixâ—d of heathens and Christians that this power could not be conueniently exercised And for other three hundred yeares there was no Emperour of the west but only of the â—ast residing in Greecâ— far from the sight of the Romane Bishops so that to the Greâ—â—an Patriarches did the charge immediatly belong to proceed with censures when they were needfull against Emperors And against some they proceeded though not against all for some were good Princes deseruing well of the Church and others that were bad raigned not long or were not so violent and incorrigible as they vrged the Chuâ—ch to vse the last remedy of deposition Finally that some heretickes and â—ersecutors were not deposed argues not want of power in Popes but shewes that circumstances of time and persons might be such as either in wisdome and clemency they would not vse that power or els could not with probability of successe or without daunger of greater inconuenience Howbeit the saying of Otho makes as much against the power of excommunication as deposition and is so stronge that I wonder how Theodidact into his fundamentall discourse for soueraignty if he meant in deede to make it â—undamentall would transcribe so notorious an errour in history as this is that no Romane Emperour was excommunicated before Henry the Fourth For to omit what graue Authors write that Philip a bloudy Emperour was excommunicated by Pope Fabian the first Constantius the Arian by Felix the second who can deny that Arcadius Eudoxia Emperours were excommunicated by Innocent the first for being accessory to S. Chrysostoms banishment and death That Anastasius the EutychiaÌ„ Emperour was excoÌ„municated by Pope Symmacus in a Roman Councell as the said Pope writing to the Emperour testifieth in these words You say that the Senate conspiring with me I haue excommunicated youâ— I haue done so in deed but therin I follow what hath beâ—n donâ— laudably by my â—redecessors before me Philippicus the Monothelite was excommunicated by Pope Constantine who commaunded that the nâ—me of the Emperour should not be put in my writings publicke or priuate or set vpon any coyne either of brasse siluer or lead Leo Isauricuâ— was excomunicated by the Gregories â—econd third and as some say deposed whereby he lost the Empire of the west Lotharius King and Brother to Lewiâ— the second Emperour was excommunicated by Nicholas the first as Otho Frisingensis relates and praiseth the Pope for that fact calling him a religious Priest and full of the zeale of God Your see how false the saying of Frisingensis is which you stood so much vpon What may be the drift of Theodidact who so carefully sets out the sayings of Authors which he knoweth to be most false and then by force draweth Royall authority to rely vpon them This I leaue to your consideration Nor do I see why his Maiesty should make great accompt of this title of Supreme head the true â—ignification whereof our authours when Papists presse them with their arguments renounce and which was first vsurped vpon a knowne scandalous occasion and by â—King whome not only Papists but also we Protestants point forth as a Monster that saith a late Historian if the memory of former Tyrants and of their cruelties were dead hiâ— raigne alone might suffice to bring them all againe to life Why should his gratious Maiesty runne the course of opposition began by this King whose name lyes buried in disgrace and infamy and his posterity turned into rottenesse and dust especially seeing this King Henry the Eight as he parted from his noble Father Henry the seauenth his affection towardes the Roman Bishop so likewise â—e degenerated from the loue that his said noble Father bore to his Maiesties family For it is wel known that this first Head of the English Church sought to cast the houâ—e of â—cotland from succession in the Crowne of England and to preuent the Blessed â—nion of both Kingdomes we now â—nioy Which blessing rooted in his Maâ—estyes person that it may be continued in the flourishing perpetuity of his Royall yssue my prayers are that they may not be driuen by flatterers into needlesse contention with the Church against which none euer opposed themselues that did not either finally yeeld or vtterly pâ—rish Philanax Herein you haue fully satisfied me Now I desire you to come to the third proposition and the second piller of soueraignty deuised by Theodidact That Tyranny Infidelity Heresy or apostacy be not sufficient causes to release subiects oâ— their obedience to their soueraignes Aristobulus Had you not put me in mind I should willingly haue forgotten this question I cannot commend their wisdome that cause or permit Treatises that plead for the impunity of tyrants to be set forth by his Maiesties special authority Wil any man thinke this impunity would be so eagerly defended were it not also loued and desired or loued for meere speculations sake not for the vse and exâ—rcise thereof It is inough for priuate men as sayd a prudent Empâ—â—sse to her husband that they be innocent but Princes seing they gouerne not brute beastes but men must also procure not to be suspected specially in matter of Tyrany wherin subiects are naturally iealous and apt to thinke the worst vpon any light occasion Sometymes weake denyalls be taken as graunts Kings that couldly detest tyranny may soone be suspected to loue it Some kind of sinnes may neuer be named without great shew of execration some may not be named at all there being no words that can sufficiently expresse the horrour that when they are named must waite vpon them Hence it is that the rules of Tragedy commaund that bloudy barbarous murthers be not represented on the strage nor related without tragicall declamations against them Indignatur enim priuatis ac prope socco Digniâ— carminibus narrare scaena Thyesta This being the suspicious disposition of men what may we thinke of Treatises set forth by authorityâ— wherein the bloudiest cruelties be related without horror yea their Authors be named as worthy of honour not as monsters deseâ—â—ing banishment from the face of the earth and memory of mankind What is this but to cast suspicions that his Maiesty secretly affects such courses and could finde in his hart that most mercilesâ—e tyranny might raigne iâ—punely Wherein the wronge done him is exceeding great his grations disposition being as far from louing Tyranny as his happy Raigne from the exâ—rcise of it Philanax His Maiesties knowne clemency innaâ—ed auersion from bloud aboundantly confirmes what you say Nor doth he stand vpon this totall impunity of Princes that he would haue true tyrants liue vncontrolled but because Common-people are so light-headed and vnstayed that if they bâ— permitted to resist their Prince in any imaginable case of tyranny they wilâ— when they are displeased with himâ— though without cause straight imagine that then is the cause of lawfull resistance Aristobulus We cannot deny
but this is the disposition of vulgar multitudes which shewes the wonderfull vncertanity of humane greatnes and the great dependence that Kings haue on God in whose hands only are the hartes of the people so lâ—kewise the scepters of kings God thought best to permit many lamentable examples of Common-wealths cruelties against their Kings partely to terrify the ambition of mankind ouer greedy of that honour partly for the punishmeÌ„t in this life of wicked gouernours partly for the benefit of good Kings that they might be more frequently mindfull of â—eath and of the iudgment consequeÌ„t therevpon As Kings haue extraordinary licence and incitements to offend so the diuine wisedome to curbe that liberty hath prouided them besides the daungers of common mortality speciall reasons to feare death and to be ready for their finall account The remedy which Theâ—didact hath inuented against this mischief to wit that this doctrine be continually beaten into Subiects eares that they are bond-men to their Princes without any meanes of redemption or liberty to runne from them how câ—uell soeuer they become towardes them this remedy I sayâ— cannot preuent but may rather accelerate the daunger Seneca writes that in his time there were such store of slaues in Rome that the Senate hauing made an edict that they should weare a certaine marke wherby they might be discouered from freemen â—hey were glad straight to recal it seeâ—ng the daunger that might ensue if â—laues should begin to compare their multitudes with the paucity of their Maisters Subiects being many in â—umber it is not secure to sound still â—his lesson in their eares that they are slaues by the condition of their birth bound to endure any horrible cruelties at the Princes pleasure For first put case they be persuaded that the commonwealth may not in such cases resist without synne but are bound all one aâ—ter another to go quietly to the slaughter yet the feare of offending God will hardly be strong inough to restrayne them from seeking liberty For seeing by the practise of former times it is knowne that liberty gotten sinfully being now gotten is coÌ„tinued rightfully they will rather choose to synne once then to be slaues euer Secondly men are so strongely by naturâ— inclined to fauour their owne libertyâ— that well may Conquerers compell them by force of armes to endure but neuer will Doctor by sâ—rength of argument conuince themâ— to thinke that nature hath created theÌ„ for such â—lauery that by right of birth one family may tyranniz without coÌ„trollement aâ— others being borne to sufâ—er withouâ— releef or without any lawfull poweâ— to resist Wisdome would haue such haâ—efull Doctrines kept â—rom commoâ— people which doe rather stir passion then perswade patience The direâ—ull apprehension of the miseries of such slauery will be more potent to awake auersion from kings in Subiects then any pretenâ—ed reasons from nature scripture or history to allay iâ— though those reasons were cleere plentifull in this point The best course then is not to driue people into despaire and into desperate atteÌ„pts by vtter denyall of remedy against cruell mercilesse tyrants but â—o to moderate matters as to remoue the life and state of Kings as much as may be from popular rashnes And this course of moderation I know not any that doe more exactly obserue then the Papists whome Theodidact singled out to be his aduersaries I will breefly declare what they hold in this poynt not standing vpon the truth of their doctrine but only how honorable to Kings it is and with what wisedome they haue found out â— safe and moderate course betweene Scilla Charibdis without declyning to â—auour in their doctrine either the rashnes of coÌ„mon people or the cruelty of tyrannons Princes First then they teach that the Kinge is Superior ouer the whole Common-wealth not only ouer euery particular subiect company They disallow the Puritan doctrine that the people haue the same power ouer Kings that the King hath ouer euery one person They say allso that the King in the necessity of the Common-wealth the state of the people so requiring may doe things contrary to the laws liberties and priuiledges that he may impose extraordinary tributs inflict extraordinary punishments not meerly for his lust but for the good of the Commonwealth Finally the King is to iudg when the necessity of this extraordinary proceeding occurreth nor are bounds to be prescribed to hiâ— royall priuiledges This doctrine giueth ample power to the King wherby he may both do many thinges very extraordinary iustly and teacheth people that they â—asily condemne not their Prince of tyranny though his dealing with them be seuere and rigorous Secondly they teach that Kings are free from bonds of lawes so as they may not be called to account nor punished much lesse deposed for ordinary and personall offences or for their deeds iniurioâ—s only to few And herevpon they detest this proposition of Puritans Iudges ought by the law of God to summon Princes before â—hem for their crimes and to proceed against them as against all other offenders So that the Common-wealth cannot by the doctrine of Papists remoue the Prince from gouernment but for crymes exorbitant which tend to the destruction of the whole state nor then neitherâ— except all other remedies being first tried to reclayme him he be found obstinate and incorrigible in his tyranous course And this shewes the sillines of Theodidacts discourse who wold proue that Kings may not in any case be deposed because Saul being a bloudy tyraÌ„t who murthered 800. Priests at once and persecute Dauid was not killed by Dauid nor deposed when he fell into his hands But in this argument neither is the inference good that no tyrant can be deposed because Saul a tyrant was not deposed nor is the instance true seeing Saul was not properly a tyranâ— The cruelty that makes a tyrant must be both obstinate without hope of relenting and vniuersall tending to the destruction of the whole state which circumstances were in neyther of these deedes of Saul His murthering so many innocent Priests was indeed a publick calamity cruelty yet therin he was not obstinate but soone relented not persecuting Priests in the rest of his raigne His malice towardeâ— Dauid was mortall and inuincible buâ— that was not so generall being confined to one man and his followersâ— for the rest Saul was an administer of iustice and a defender of the common good for which he lost his life Thirdly they teach that Princesâ— thougâ— they be manifest and incorrigible tyrants yeâ— may not be deposed much lesse made away with out publick sentence and a inridicall releasmeÌ„â— of his Subiectâ— from their obedience This their doctrine is defined in the Councell oâ— Constance against the ancient Puritaâ—nisme of Iohn VVicklifâ—e renewed in thiâ— age by Iohn Caluin and his followers holding that a priuate man hauing some speciall inward motioÌ„ may kill a Tyrant Wherfore
so longe as the Common-wealth doth endure the tyrant not depriue him by publick senteÌ„ce so long priuate men must endure him must obey him willingly for conscience sake Thus the Fathers cited by Theodidact persuaded Christians to obâ—y the ancient persecuting Emperors that were tyrants Thus S. Peter as also Theodidact largely vrgeth commaunded the beleeuing Ieweâ— to obey Claudius a bloudy and barbarous Emperour which must be vnderstood in things not against iustice and religion so long as the tyranous Eâ—perour should be tolerated by the CoÌ„monwealth For who will thiâ—ke that S. Peter by that his exhortation meant that they should obey Claudius further then for the time he shold be admitted as lawfull Prince who can wiâ—h any probability imâ—gine that S. Peter by that sentence decided the controuersy betwene the Româ—n Emperour the Senate about the right of making and deposing Emperours and that he defined in behalfe of â—he Emperour that he might noâ— be deposed by the Senâ—te that in case of deposition Christians were still to obey the depriued not the new erected magistrate I caÌ„not thinke S. Peter dyd desire that Christians in those times shold busy their heads with these speculations but simply for conscience sake obey the present Prince they fouÌ„d allowed in the state wherin â—hey liued so long as he was permitted to rule It would goe hard with Kings if their condition were like the Emperour seeing the greatest patroÌ„â— of Kings dare not deny what Emperors themselues haue acknowledged that they may be deposed by the Senate or Peeres of the Empire So that these exhortations of Apostles and Fathers to obey tyranous Princes for the time they be tolerated by the Common-wealth which Theodidact vrgeth so diffusely come short of prouing that Princes are in all cases indeposable Fourthly the Papists hold that the sentence of deposition must not only be giuen by a publick magistrate but allso by the whole magistracy and nobility of the Commonwealth or by the far greater part thereof And for this cause they say that neither Iulian the Apostata nor Constantius nor Valens Arian Emperors were deposed which Theodidact exaggerateth as an argument of great momeÌ„t to proue that ChristiaÌ„s caÌ„ vse no forcible resistaÌ„ce against persecuting Princes But the cause why these hereticall Emâ—erours were not deposed cannot be proued to haue byn want of authority in the Church but because there waÌ„ted at that time meanes to vnite the whole Empire in the busines of deposing hereticall Emperours For from the time of Constantine to the sack of Rome by Alaricus heatâ—ens and infidells did abound through the whole Romane Empire many of them bearing chief offices euen in the Senat who could not be brought nor commaunded to concurre against Emperours for their heresy or apostacy so that the attempts of Catholiks to depose them could then haue had no other successe but faction and ciuill warre Nor could the sentence of the supreme pastor vnite them in that enterprize seeing a great part of the Empire were Infidells as hath been said and so not the Popes subiâ—cts But when the Commonwealth consisteth of only Christians then heresy and apostacy of the Prince ioyned with persecution ought to breed in them all a generall dislike thereof the sentence of their spirituall Pastor challengeth likeâ—ise vniuersal obediâ—nce so that if factioÌ„s grow amongest them the fault is not in the cause which is common to all nor in the sentence which bâ—ndeth them all but in themselues that are neither zealouâ— in their Religion nor obedient to thâ— Church He that shall consider whaâ— orthodoxe Fathers haue written against Constantius the Arian will soonâ— perceaue that the Bishops of the primitiue Church were sharpe censurerâ— of hereticall Princes They rebuke him for gathering together places oâ— Scripture that commaund that he bâ— honored and obeyed omitting other testimonies that giue liberty to resist and bind him to obey his spirituall Pastors They tell him in playnâ— tearmes they might deale with him as the Machabees did with Antiochus whoÌ„ they resisted his armies they ouerthrew cast him from the Kingdome of Iury. I tell thee Constanâ—ius saith one of those Fathers hadst thou been in the hands of Maâ—tathias that zealous priest so wicked a persecutor as thou art he would haue killed thee Thus bouldy writeth that Bishop which shewes â—hat the reasoÌ„ why AriaÌ„ Emperors in those dayes were not deposed was not want of iust desert in the Princes nor of power in the Church but because the seÌ„tence would not conioyne the whole Commonwealth being then mixed of heathens Christians in the execution thereof so that the sentence could not be lawfully executed without the asistance of some absolute temporall Prince And this assistance the primitiue Church in those dayes did not neglect to craue of Constantine the most pious Christian Emperour who tooke vpon him the protection of Catholike Bishops that were banished by his Arian Brother Constantius to whome he sent word that vnlesse he would restore them Hostem se illi fuâ—urum nec quicquam nisi bellum expectandum that he would become his enimie and that he should expect nothing from him but warre And as for Iulian the Apostata I do fearefully relate what they write For wheras by some it had byn giuen out that he was by a Christian souldier depriued both of Empire life they magnify the stroke whosoeuer were the Author thereof And some Christian historiaÌ„s graunt that it is not incredible that some Christian souldyer killed Iulian and defend the fact as most glorious seeing say they not only Pagans but all men of what religion soeuer eueÌ„ to our age haue allwaies exalted them that haue taken away tyrants venturing their liues for the liberty of their kindred and countrey how much more glorious is it to do this for God and Religion These sayings and the like may be found in the writings of the Auncients which I do not bring as approuing them yea this last of priuate vndertaking against Emperours I vtterly mislike But this sheweth what I pretend that it were better wholly to relinquish the discussion of this controuersy then to prouoke men to produce these authorities and that they be not wise or not friends of the King that will needes be stirring in this busines Fiftly Papists teach that a Christian Commonwealth may not proceed against their Christian Prince though he be a tyrant without the aduise anâ— consent of the supreme Paâ—stor of their soules This they require not only in the case oâ— heresy and Apostacy but also when subiects are moued against them for tyranous oppression of their liues and temporall state And their reason is because deposition beeing an affaire of singuler momentâ— ought to be done wiâ—h the greaâ—est aduise and deliberation that may be Nor is it secure to commit the cause to the sole Commonwealth least the people out of passion the Nobles out of