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
whome they were bound vnder payne of gâ—uions sinne to expel as you heard this forsaid Father affirme Philanax I see the old Testament specially according to S. Chrysostomes exposition doth not very plausibly proue regall independency of Priest-hood hath not Theodidact better arguments out of the new Aristobulus He alleageth diuers testimonies that euery soule is to be subiect to the higher powers and of Fathers auerring that there is no state nor man in the world equall to the Emperour Which particulerly to relate were to wast paper seeing these testimonies proue no more then what Pâ—pists commonly graunt That Kâ—ngs are Soueraigne and supreme in temporall affaires within their Dominions That all men whatsoeuer Prophetsâ— Euangelists Apostles Priests Monks that liue within their states are subiect to their Gouernment and to the lawes which they make for the good oâ— the Common wealth They proue that primitiue Châ—â—stiaÌ„s both laymen Priests were bound to pay tribute to the Emperour were in criminall causes answerable before the teÌ„porall Magistrate For the dignity of Priestly state and the speciall ordinance of Christ exempting them was not then sufficiently promulgated nor accepted of by Princes as afterward it was in gratitude for the benefit of their conuersion to Christianity by the preaching and labours of Priesthood The places then of Scriptures and Fathers shew that Priests euen Apostles were subiect to the Emperour in causes temporall but can any man with reason thinke that their testimonies import that vnbeleeâ—ing Empâ—rours were in all spirituall occurreÌ„ces the soueraignâ— Gouernours of the Christian Church That the supreme Pastorship to decide doubtes of faith gather Councels or excommunicate disobedient ChristiaÌ„s was committed to them I thinke Protestants will hardely graunt this Whence Papists inferre that had Kings byn ordeyned by Christ supreme Gouernours next himself in the Ecâ—â—esiastical hierarchy he would haue prouided Christian Kings to furnish that place in the first erecting of his Church Which seeing he did not they fuâ—ther deduce that Kings cannot challenge by Christs institution any place of gouernment in Church-affayres that the keyes of his Church signifying supreme authority were by him deliuered not to Kings but to Peter by which gift he made him high steward of his house Whosoeuer will be of Christs family must yield themselues their swordes their Crownesâ— subiect to Peters keyes Their soules you will say but not their bodies not their swords not their Crownes But agaynst this they vrge that accessorium sequitur principale What is accessory and consequent still followes and waits vpon the principall The King submitting his person to the Church must needs likewise submit togeather with his person his Crowne and sword that not only as men sed in quantum Reges seruiant Christo eueÌ„ as Kings they be seruants to Christ. In acknowledgmâ—â—t of which superiority Constantine as S. Augustin writeth eminentissimum culmen Romani Imperij diadema suum piscatori Petro subiecit being the most emineÌ„t Soueraigne of the Romain Empire submitted not only his soule but his scepter and diademe to the fisherman Peter to the end that Peters keyes might direct temporall power towardes the consecution of eternall life and to restraâ—ne the same if at any time the owner therof should vse it to the ouerthrow of Christianity They bring an history to this purpose out of Suidas â— concerning Constantius the Arian who seemeth the first that challenged this Supremacy in Church affayres As he was saâ—th Suidas â—nce sitting in Councell in the midst oâ— many Prelates Iudge of their Controuersies Leontius the most holy Bishop of Tripolis reproued him openly that being a secular lay man he wold meddle with Church-affaires which saying made that prophane Emperour to conceaue the vndecency of the practise that out of band for very shame be desisted If to the fauorits of Kinges ancient Fathers seeme ouer playne and bitter who call them that will gouerne in the Church Antichrists so in my opinion wee ought to take heed that our Church disgrace not herselfe by being base and seruile in this poynt laying her Keyes vnder the feete of Kings which iâ— another extreme What may we think of Theodidact who writes that the Kinge saileth to heauen in his owne ship guided by his owne subiects ouer whome he is Iudge and may punishe them with death if he find them in his opinion to deliuer their owne errors in steed of diuine truth S. Paul were he aliue would preach that the Church the ship to conuay passengers to heauen is not the Kings but Christs which he bought with his pretious bloud and the gouernment therof he committed not to Kingsâ— but to Bishops The two Orthodoxe Saints and Bishops Hosius and Ambrose did they now liue would say Pallaces belonge to Emperors Churches to Priests The great Gregorie of Nazianzum were he now liuing his doctrine would be that Kings are subiect to the tribunall of Bishops that Priests are the more eminent Gouernours nâ—t Kings subiects in Church affayres but as another Gregorye sayth their Fathers Maisters and Iudges yea that it is miserable madnes â—or Kings to goe about with their wicked lawes to make them be at their command to whom they know that Christ together with the Keyes gaue power to bind in heauen and in earth These and the like authorities of Fathers Papists heap together which I haue brought not that I desire that any thing be detracted from royall authority but to the end that you may see that it is not wisdome to ground Royall Soueraignty vpon this Kingly Church-primacy which Proâ—estants allow Puritans detest Papists with the saying of Fathers shake and batter Philanax Herein I agree with you yet that the Roman Bishop hath not this supremacy to depose Kings I am moued to beleeue by that which Theodidact writeth that none of them exercised it before the time of Gregory the VII otherwise tearmed Hildebrand who excommunicated and deposed Henry the Foâ—â—th Emperour about the yeare 1073â— more then a thousand yeares from Christs ascension as Otho Frisingensis liuiâ—g neere those times saith I read and read againe the gestes of the Romane Kings and Emperors and no where I find any of them till this man Henry the Fourth excommunicated or deposed by the Bishop of Rome Aristobulus I do not desire to proue that authority of the Pope my drift is to shew that Kings Church-primacy is not aduisely brought and placed as the pillar of their ragall Soueraignty For to that which moueth you so much behold the Papists how easily and how many things they answere First deposition being an extraordinary remedy against the persecution of hereticall Princes not to be vsed but in cases of extâ—emity what wonder that practises therof vpon Romane Emperours haue not been many Moreouer for the first 300. yeares after Christ there was no Christian Emperour on whom that power might be vsed In the other two hundred the
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
themselues or whose auncestors come to the Crowne vniustly be made Lawfull Princs when they are freely admitted by the state without debatable contradiction though perchaunce some may suruiue that in the sight of God hath better right of bloud And no doubt can be made but Athalia was admitted with generall consent for six yeeres when Ioas lay hidden none standing in open competency against her That this coâ—sent was not free but inforced can neither be proued nor cleerly confuted So Theodidacts solution is grounded vpon vncertanity But his answere to the second instance about Ozias that the high-Priest did not cast him out of the Temple by force but caused him to depart by word and admonition only is much more insufficient and hardly can it agree with the text of Scripture which sayth that to hinder Ozias from burning incense there entred into the Temple togeather with Azarias fourescore Priests viri fortissimi stout and valiant men signifying they went with resolution to vse force and to cast him out sayth S. Chrysostom â— not as King but as a fugitue and vngratious seruant They warned him to desist and to depart whose admonition when he contemned God incontinently strook him with Leprosy His Leprosy the Priests perceaued shining in his forehead before he felt it himselfe and vpon sight therof began out of hand hastily to â—hrust him out though when he â—elt Gods miraculous chastisement vpon him he was as willing to go as they to carry him away So that in the beginning he was drawne in the end lead out of the Temple Ducunt volentem fata nolentem trahunt Philanax How might Papists cast him out by force seeing Chrisostome cited by Theodidact saith The office of a Priest is only to reproue and only to admonish not to moue armeâ— not vse buckelers not to shake a lance but only to argue and freely to admonish Aristobulus The saying of Chrysostome which Theodidact doth so much magnify is properly verified not in the Leuiticall Priests who were warriers as other Tribes and were chosen to Priestly dignity for their consecrating their hands to God in the bloud of synners But the saying is true of Christian Priesthood whereof they were figures which abhorreth bloudy proceedings But this makes not against what hath been said that Oziaâ— was cast out by force because the same Father alloweth that euen Christian Priests thruâ—t wicked Kings ouâ— of the Church with their hands or keep them out forcibly by the interposition of their body So did he resist Endoxia Empresse and S. Ambrose was ready to haue vsed the likâ— force against Theodosius yea the same S. Chrysostome highly commendeth the famous Patriarch of Antioch and Martyr Babilas for keeping a bloâ—dy Emperour out of the Church impacta in pectus dextera giuing him a thrust on the brest wherby saith this Father he taught the world in what degree Priestâ—ood excelleth Royalty he taught Kings to keep their power within their â—ounds prescribed by God he taught Priests in what sort they were to rule and vse authority ouer Kings Philanax I see it can hardly be denyed but the Priests cast the King by force out of the Temple but him sayth Theodidact they did not depriue of his Kingly authority which he held to his death for he â—eigned 52. years which caâ—not be true excepâ— the years of his leprosy be reckoâ—ed as part of his reigne Aristobulus To this obiection of Theodidact S. Chrysostome his â—hosen Patron makes answere euen in that very homily by him cited saying that Ozias was depriued of Royall auâ—hority yet he stil retayned the execution therof because the people out of respect to his Diademe and Royall dignity did not execute the senâ—ence vpon him so that he still remayned in his house and sate in the Throne transgressing the Law And that the people did greeuously offend in not casting the King by force from gouernment the same Father â—estifieth in these words This their negligence saith he prouoked God to anger stopped the course of prophesy that I say saw not the Lord till Ozias was dead And consider the mercy of God that did not for this ouerthrow the Citty nor destroy the inhabitants but as one frend expostulates with another so did God with his people deseruing greater punishment My â—eople do you feare to expell this impure Kinge Do you so reuerence his dignity as to transgresse my law VVill you not reuenge my quarrell Nor will I speake with you I could my selfe haue cast him out of the Citty but what remayned I leâ—t to be finished by you I cast him out of my â—emple he being a King you haue not put him out of your Citty I bound him fast in Leprosy as in a chayne and of a King made him a priuate manâ— he being now a priuate man you haue not set vpon him VVhom I condemned you had not courage to cast out Thus S. Chrysostome most cleerly teaching the lawfull deposition of Princes and that subiects not only may but are bound to vse force and execute that sentence vpon them when they are leprous that is hereticall and for such declared by the Church And this is peculiar to â—eresy which specially being ioyned with persecution is a leaprous and infectioâ—s synne that when the Prince is namely denounced and cast out of the Church for it the Law of God and 〈◊〉 bindes the Subiects if they be 〈◊〉 to sepâ—rate themselues from him in respect of the daunger Which seemes a doctrine so receaued anciently amongest Christians that euen the Popes who still stood vpon the priuiledge that they might be iudged by no man haue euer yeelded themselues subiect to the Church and deposeable in this case neither did Henry the fourth Emperour in his contention with Hidelbrand or Gregory the seauenth deny but for heresy he might be deposed He pleâ—ded he was no hereticke and that for other crimes the Pope could not depose him The tradition of Fathers saith he is that I am to be iudged by God alone except I haue declined from the Catholike faith which God forbid This doctrine of the Papists seemes to answere what Theodidact els where obiects that euen the Romanists themselues teach that excommunicatioÌ„ not doth free the seruant froÌ„ obedience to his maister For though this be true in excomunication for other crymes yet heresy is a cryme that haâ—h peculiar force by Christian institution to separate seruants and sonnes from their hereticall Lords and Fathers One of the Apostolicall ordinations related by S. Clement is that Bishops ought to cast impenitent hereticks out of the Church and commaund the faithfull not to haue any manner of conuersation with them So out of S. Chrysostome they conclude that Christians may no more endure a Prince declared heretike by their supreme Pastour then â—he Iewes might suffer a King declared Leaper by their high Priest
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
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