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
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.
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
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
â— rather approue teach that regall auâ—hority was created imediatly of God â—ogether with mans nature and is forâ—ally in euery absolute and free state â—hich state when they choose for theÌ„â—â—lues a Kinge doth not produce a new â—ind of power which was not before â—ut the royall Soueraignty which God â—reated and bestowed vpon them they â—â—ansferre from himselues to the perâ—â—n elected by which coniunction of â—â—e Commonwealths power with â—â—s person he is created King In the â—â—ke manner parents produce children â—â—t by producing the soule which is 〈◊〉 God only but by conioyuing the â—ule created of God to the bodie preâ—â—red and deâ—igned by generation â—â—erunto True then is the saying of 〈◊〉 Paul Omnis potestas à Deo est All power is 〈◊〉 God and only imediatly fâ—oÌ„ God 〈◊〉 ioyned with particuler persons 〈◊〉 without the mediation of man â—ence saith Tertullian cited by this â—â—eatiser Kings haue their power whence â—â—r spirit both created by God only but as the spirit is not infused into thâ— bodie without the concourse of Paâ—rents so neither is Royall poweâ— vnited with this or that person buâ— by the consent of their Country Yoâ— see that euen in this opinion Kings arâ— no lesse beholding to the Commonâ—wealth for their authority then Chilâ—dren to their Parents for their soules 〈◊〉 whose being parents concurre onlâ— designing the matter and making thâ— same a fit receptacle for their souleâ— Vayne then is Theodidacts subtilâ—y 〈◊〉 make Kings beholding to God onlâ— and no lesse vayne is his speculatioÌ„ 〈◊〉 proue their exemption from men Kinâ— saith he as they receaue their power â—roâ— God oÌ„ly so â—or the good or euil administratioÌ„ thâ—â—reof they are accountable only to God Who seâ— not the weaknes of this infereÌ„ce thouâ—â— the antecedent were true The soule 〈◊〉 men is of God only yet for wordes 〈◊〉 deedes proceeding from the same mâ—â— are accountable to morâ—al Superiouâ—â— The power of Father ouer his childâ—â—â— the power of husband ouer his wâ—â—â— is of God only yet for the administrâ—â—tion therof they may be called to aâ—â—â—unt by the Commonwealth yea â—â—s authority which God hath giuen â—â—em when they tyranize ouer wife â—â—d children the Commonwealth â—ay restrayne or vtterly take from â—â—em To conclude and summe vp â—is whole discourse in few wordes â—hat Saul or Dauid or any King had â—wer only from God is at the least 〈◊〉 vncertainty thence to infer the â—â—â—e of al Kings is a meer vanity That 〈◊〉 Kings haue power from God only â—â—th no probability Graunt all yet â—â—ueraignty cannot out of these prinâ—â—â—les be concluded seeing some â—wer only from God may be suborâ—â—â—ate to superiors on earth Theodidaâ—â—â— â— did he not desire that royal Soueâ—â—â—gnty should fall would he thinke 〈◊〉 striue so earnestly to haue the 〈◊〉 builded on this heape of sand Philanax Doth not this doctrine that â—â—nces are made by the consent of the â—â—â—monwealth impare the Maieâ—â—â—f Kings and the reuerence and â—â—â—ration due thereunto Aâ—istobulus No but rather increase the samâ— more then the contrary conceipt Foâ— if men be made to the image and likenes of God sonnes of God and God on earth principally in respect of thâ— soueraignty they haue to rule themselâ—ues and other Creatures when this diâ—uine Maiesty of nature is wholy transâ—ferred from the Communalty to onâ— person how sacred venerable maâ— he be thought as in the beginning oâ— the world the waters that were vnâ—der the Heauens gathering into onâ— place made this vast ocean we see sâ— the heauenly guift of Soueraignty dâ—â—ffused in euery free and absolute state when they by common consent emâ—â—tying exhausting themselues dâ—â—riue the same to one person bâ—â—comes a fountaine or rather a mayâ— sea of Maiesty and power which 〈◊〉 humane in regard of the person 〈◊〉 which it is the manner it comâ— vnto him but diuine if we looke 〈◊〉 the spring whence it originally aâ—â— immediatly floweth To which puâ—â—â—ose the Poet singeth not amisse Terrae Dominos pelagique futuros â—â—menso decuit rerâ—m de Principe nasci Philanax I am satisfied see plainely that his immediate receauing power froÌ„ God only is but an empty title withâ—ut substance which his Maiesty will â—ot regard being â—â—ll of true glory â—lexander was not wise in his vaine amâ—ition to be thought Iupiters sonne â—hereby he lost their hartes that had â—ost helped him to the Monarchy of â—he earth Aristobulus The conceipt is not only idle â—mpty but also may preiudice Kings As Hercules choaked the giant by holâ—ing him aloft in the ayre whom by â—hrowing against the ground he could â—ot ouercome so the enemies of Kings whome by their doctrine that depreâ—sed them vnder the feete of common â—eople they could not make way â—ith flattering subiectes they lift to â—he skyes that they may more dangerously fall For such conceipts by raising Kings beyond measure aboue tâ—â— heades of their subiects remoue theâ— much further froÌ„ their hearts whicâ— are whatsoeuer flatterers say the imâ—â—diate fouÌ„taine of their greatnes thâ— only seat of security they may truâ— vnto Such Monarches as thoughâ— themselues sure being feared thougâ— they were also haâ—â—d haue left behinâ— them lamentable documents thaâ— they were deceaued and that the sayâ—ing of a prudent historian is most truâ— Nullum stabile regnum nisâ— beneuolentia muniâ—tum No King can long raigne who iâ— not walled in and guarded about witâ— the Loue of his subiects Mans louâ— with ease descendes to persons vndeâ— him either by naturall descent whicâ— is the cause they loue so deerly theiâ— Children or by voluntary subiection which is the reason we loue them thaâ— do freely deuote themâ—elues to ouâ— seruice Neither did God in the treaâ—sure of his infinite wisdome find any better meanes to wynne mans aâ—ffection then to descend both to reâ—ceaâ—e life and being from man gloryâ—â—â—g to be stiled the sonne of man and afâ—â—â—ward to liue as an humble seruant 〈◊〉 man performing the greatest serâ—â—ce of Charity to dye for him It â—â—nnot be thought how louely to man â—aiesty is that professeth to come of â—â—s stocke and to be wholy consecraâ—â—d to his loue you may by this ghesse â—ow pernicious this new doctrine is â—â—at dryeth vp thesâ— two fountaines 〈◊〉 peoples affection towards their â—rince by making him skorne to be â—â—ought though S. Peter so tearmes â—â—m the creature of man much lesse â—â—eir seruant rather then absolute â—â—ord that may dispose of their liues â—â—uings at this will Contrary to this was the iudgmeÌ„t â—f all the worthiest and best Roman â—mperors that raigned happily and â—â—ed quietly in their bedds They did â—ost willingly acknowledge the Emâ—ire to be the guift of the people and â—enate they were much more carefull â—f their Subiects good then of their â—wne yea they seemed not to regarde â—easons against their persons that â—ere not ioyned with other publicke dâ—triment Amongst theâ—e Traian iâ— emineÌ„t who being chosen Emperouâ— straight
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—
doth Theodidact bring any proofe therof besides the patience of the Iewes when they were persecuted by Aman who won Assuerus to send forth a decree to destroy their whole nation both yonge and olde children and women in one day Here saith he the whole visible Church which was only amongst the Iewes by the barbarous designements of Assuerus seemed to be in the very iawes of death yet they take no armes they consulâ— not how to poison Assuerus or Aman they animate no desperate person suddenly to stab them but there was only great sorrow amâ—ngest them and fasting weeping Aristobulus It is not probable that Aman had graunt to murther the whole nation of the Iewes but only all those that were out of their Country scattered in the Townes of the Persian Monarchy whome Aman speaking with Assuerus tearmeth a people dispersed through all the Prouinces of the Empire and diuided one from another besides which there was a flourishing Church in Iury. Secondly wheras Theodidact saith that amongest the Iewes in that extremity there was sorrow fasting and weeping only that only he addes of his owne head against Gods expresse word which besides these meanes to appease Gods anger setteth downe other secondary meanes they vsed for their deliueraÌ„ce for they better informed Assuerus deceaued by Amans sinister suggestions vsing as instrument the Quâ—ene that was so gracious in his sight resolued also to vse other helpes had that failed them as Mardochaeus sent a message to Estherâ— per aliam ocâ—asionem liberabuâ—tur Iudaei by some other way the Iewes sâ—albe released Neither may we doubt but the Iewes had they been able might and would haue resisted Assuerus had he inuaded their Country with intention to destroy them For they might haue done to him what their Auncestors did to his Persian predecessor as Eusebius S Augustine Sulpitius Beda other Fathers hold that Nabuchâ—dâ—nosoâ— was that sent an army against them vnder the conduct of Holofernes whom they resisted as it is well knowne with miraculous successe I doe not examine the truth of their opinionâ— whether Nabuchodonosor were in deed a Persian Emperour but I note the iudgment of the learned Christian antiquity that they held it lawfull for the people of the Iewes to vse forcible resistance against their tyrannous Soueraigne neither doth any Father or Doctor reproue their opinion in this respect And in what writings of Christian Fathers be not the Machabees renowned that valiantly opposed theÌ„selues against Antiochus persecuting theÌ„ for Religion who was their lawfull Prince whose ancestors had peaceably enioyed Soueraignty ouer Iury from the time of Seleucus for the space of an hundred and fourty yeares and were acknowledged by Priest and people as much as euer Persian or Roman Emperors were And if wee call to mind Christian histories wee shall finde that as soone as the teÌ„porall sword was put into the hands of a Christian Monarch the Christian Church craued the assistaÌ„ce thereof against Licinius the persecuting Emperour Constantine went to succour the Christians of the East whome Licinius persecuted Being persuaded saith Eusebius that it was a great deede of piety sanctity to releeue a great multitude of men by deposing of one man from gouernment In which enterprise God did miraculously concurre to giue him victory and Christian Bishops assisted him which they wold not haue done had they thought no meanes lawfull of seeking liberty from persecution of tyrants besides teares and prayers Clodouâ—us the first Christian King of France how was he magnified for making warre vpon Alaricus the Arian King of Spayn whose Empire in those dayes did eÌ„brace the greatest part of Gascony wherof Clodoueus did dispossesse the Gothes and slew their Prince in the battaile with his owne hand hauing no other quarrell then Religion against him When Basiliscus the Nestorian Emperour went about to compell Catholike Bishops to condemne the Councell of Chaldedon Acatius Patriarch of Constantinople stirred vp both people and monks against him went to the Emperour freely reproued his impiety that out of feare he was glad to recall his Edict Anastasius not many yeares after Emperour friend of the Manichees Arians gathered a synod and sought to constrayne the Patriarch of Constantinople to condemne the Councell of Chalcedon The people straight in troopes came to the place oâ— meeting cryingâ— Now is the time of Martyrdome Let no man depart from his Pastor They reuiled the Emperour they called him Manichee and vnworthy to be Prince so that frighted to see the whole multitude reâ—use his gouernment he then gaue ouer his enterprise And when afterward relapsed again into his impiety he sent souldiers to Hierusalem to cast Catholike Bishops from their sea the Bishop and the two Abbots Sabbas and Theodoâ—ius men most orthodoxe of miraculous sanctity gathered forces and in the hearing of the Emperours officer excommunicated Nestorius and Euâ—iches and their adherents they draue the souldiers by force out of the Church and their Captaine to saue his life was glad to run away Many the like examples might be layd together out of antiquity which shew that though teares serious repentance and prayers to God be the best the cheefest and readiest remedies without which no other ordinarily preuaile yet the Fathers iudged that some forcible meanes may with due circumstances be lawfully vsed rather then the light of Christian Religion should be extinguished or at least this is cleere that this practise may be so confirmed by examples of Christian antiquity that I cannot iudge it wisdom to make these questions the common subiect of discourse to the vulgar multitude The only way to abate the estimation of things that by themselues are exceeding pretious is to compare them with other that incomparably exceed them in worth Mortall life compared with eternity growes into contempt stars shine not in the presence of the sunne great riuers seeme nothing in respect of the ocean The splendor of royall Maiesty power is as it were a sunne shining among his subiects the readiest way to make the sunne seeme dymme in a piouâ— and religious sight is that which Theodidact vseth to compare the King and allegiance with God and religion before whom euen Angelicall purity is darknesse and all created greatnes put together no more then one drop of morning dew in respect of the mayne sea A learned Greciâ—n writes that a pious man cannot respect his Prince when he sees the cause of Religion in daunger then he neither regards person nor dreadeth power how soueraigne soeuer it be Our writers thinke it an excuse of our first â—hospellers rebellion that the light of the Ghospell â—hining in their eyes made them not see the maiesty and greatnes of Popish Princes whom they threw from their thrones What wonder theÌ„ if men that haue zeale of Religion do stagger at the allegiance we exact of them seeing we openly require them to professe