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—
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
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
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
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