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—
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
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
GOD AND THE KING OR A DIALOGVE Wherein is treated of Allegiance due to our most Gracious Lord King Iames within his Dominions WHICH by remouing all Controuersies and causes of Dissentions and Suspitions bindeth Subiects by an inuiolable band of Loue Duty to their Soueraigne Translated out of Latin into English Printed at Cullen M. DC XX. To the Reader THE former Dialogue set forth vnder thiâ— same Title GOD AND THE KING the persons of the same being Theodidactus and Philalethes the first signifiyng One taught of God the other A louer of Truth did â—eed explication in diuers poynts aswell in regard of the verity of the discourse as also for the more safty both of Kings and their Kingdomes VVherfore it was thought good that in this present Dialogue two other persons should treate of the same subiect Aristobulus that is A good CouÌ„sellour and Philanax A Louer of Kinges of which the one wisheth all good vnto Kinges the other suggesteth what he iudgeth best for their State And so in few wordes gentle Reader thou hast the scope of both Dialogues Farewell GOD AND THE KING Philanax YOv are well met Aristobulus your countenance and gesture import that your thoughtes are much busied What may bâ— the occasion of these Meditations Aristobulus I haue lately perused a short Treatise intituled GOD AND THE KING the Author whereof vndertaketh to shew the groundes foundations of royall Soueraignty and of the Oath of Allegiance Philanax Why should the perusall of the Treatise cause such admiration in you I am sure you bâ—ing a Professour of the Ghospell are noâ— of their number that seeke to depresse Kingly power or thinke much that Kings should oblige their subiects to them by Oathes Aristobulus My professioâ— and my deedes declare sufficiently my dutifull affection to Kings my high esteeme of their authority my detestatioÌ„ of all treason hollownes and insincerity towardes them I approue the doctrine of this Dialoguâ— that vnder the pious and reuerend appellations of Father and Mother are comprized not only our naturall Parents but likewise all higher Powers and especially such as haue soueraigne authority as Kings Princes who more expresly then any Gouernours represent the person maiesty of one God ruling the whole world and are his substitutes lieutenants euery one within his owne Kingdome The subiect may not touch his soueraigne with any hurtfull touch nor stretch out his hand against his sacred person nor aâ—fright nor disgrace him by cutting the lapp â—f his garment not hurt him in word no not â—o much as in thought He must discharge his â—anifold duties towards him by payinge â—ribute for his regall supporte by fighting his â—attailes with Ioab aduenturing his life with Dauid to vanquish his enimies Reuealing with â—eligions Mardochaeus treasonable designeâ—ents against him by powring out praâ—ers â—nd supplications for his wellfare by esteeming and â—onouring him from the harte and out of conscience as the annointed oâ— the Lord Gods holy Ordinance and Minister and as a God vpon earth These doctrines I allow and these duties towardes Princes whosoeuer infringeth either by tumults or seditions against his state or by treacherous and violent attempts against his person deserue as violators of Gods will contemners of natures â—aw and enemies to the good of their Countrey to be punished persecuted â—o death by sword and fire Philanax Seeing then that the Treatise you â—peake of doth so fully declare the duty of Allegiance to the Kinge what â—roubleth you therein that your counâ—enance discouereth dislâ—ke Aristobulus To commend allegiance in generall termes simply and playnly conceaued is most alowable necessary in these times But bold or rather desperate Treatises such as this is that disclose the mysteries of Regall Prerogatiue which as his Maiesty well noteth ought not to be searched into that ground the authority of Kings so necessary for mankinde vpon doubtfull curiosâ—ties that moue questions about depositions both disgracefull to Maiesty and odious to the subiects such Treatises I say doe more harme then good and without doubt the first Authors of such conceipts be secret enemies to Kingly gouernment and by this stratageme would craftily vndermine what hitherto in vayne they haue assaulted openly Philanax I am persuaded the Treatise you mention was not written by any Papist nor that any of that generation â—ad their hand in it Who then may we think be these vnderminers of Monarchy you speak of Aristobulus I would to God it were hard to name them or that euery one could not point with his finger at that professioÌ„ which from her cradle hath euer been a mortall enemie 〈◊〉 Kings That the first planters of the Ghospell in this age rooted the same in rebellion and in hatred to Monarchy neitheir wee nor any of their best frends can deny Our late Arch-bishop excuseth them that their zeale was very greate the light of the Ghospell sayth he then first appearing vnto them so dazeled their eyes that they did not well consider what they did Without doubt so it was and so it will euer be where the pure light as they call it of this Ghospell shineth and zeale therof feruently burneth there can be no assured allegiance to the Prince This I confesse is no small blemisâ— to the Religion which I would conceale did not loue to his Maiesty force me to speak And the reason why it must needes be so is euident A true spirit zealous in ReligioÌ„ can neuer be quiet in the busines of sâ—luation and in questions and Controuersies of Faith â—â—ll he find some ground infallible whereon he may rest The Papist holdes that the Popes sentence specially in generall Councels is the infallible decider of Controuersies vpon which he repoâ—â—th his conscience And by submitting euery one his priuate iudgment to the sentence of a supreme Iudge they gayne peace and vâ—ity among themselues and their Iudge still when he defines being as they pretend assisted by Gods spirit they are secured from errour An easy and sweet way to end Controuersies had it pleased God to haue appointed it wherein verity and charity mâ—et Iustice doctrine I say iust with Gods word kisseth with peace and Christians might haue enioyed what S. Paul so highly commendeth charity of â—â—uth But our Authors constantly affirme that since the Apostles God grâ—unted no such priuiledge to any Pastor nor wold bestow so great blessing on his Church as to haue perpetually such a visible gouernour to decide her doubtes nimium vobis Romana propago visa potens superi propria haec si dona fuissent Wâ—erfore by the conseÌ„t of the Churches which we call reformed the spirit of God deciding Controuersies which Papists tied to the Pope and his Councells was giuen to euery man that should attend to the spirit speaking in Scriptures A course which pleased much the common people in the beginning persuading them that they had been blinded and wronged by the Pope taking from them
together with the vse of Scriptures their authority to iudge definitions of the Church by Scriptures The deuisers of this way seemed to haue great zeale of the truth but were not carefull to prouide for peace And so in practise this deuise begot a multitude of Sects and Religions one against another that many weary of all began to thinke it were better men should be vnited in error then thus mortally diuided in Truth A meane was deuised to decide Controuersies by nationall Synods that are confessed may erre but the Ciuil magistrate as our chief Deuines teach as being President in them is to compell his subiects by the sword to imbrace those doctrines that be determined be they true or fals For this course say they was appointed by God who thought it better in the eye of his vnderstanding that sometimes an erroneous definitiue sentence should preuaile then that strifes should haue respite to grow and not come speedily to some end Heere desire of peace concord may seeme to haue made these men lesse zealous of the Truth then behooued them So it opened a gappe specially in England to prophanes irreligiosity which is to be iust of the Kings Religion whatsoeuer it be or rather of none A salue for this sore hath been inueÌ„ted that subiects ought to obey their Princes Lawes and definitions when they haue only probabilities against them not when they haue necessary and demonstratiue reasons which discharge the conscience and giue liberty to resist This caueat and salue for Truth sets the wound of dissention againe a bleeding Sects in the world are now allmost infinite for number amongest which not one is found that pretendeth not cleere and euident demonstration and proofe from holy Scripture for their contrary and repugnant opinions And who shall iudg in this contradiction and confusion whose reasons are necessary and demonstratiue The arguments which we think demonstratiâ—e moue Papists nothing at all and arguments which we iudg of no force Puritans as Archbishop Bancroft writeth of them take to be so vrgent that if euery hayre of their head were a seuerall life they wold giue them all in the cause This controuersy therfore whose reasons are demonstratiue and whose are not is the greatest of all others nor is there any way to decide it in our churches besides the sword of the temporall Prince Princes therfore for conseruation of peace must keep the spirit in awe practising power infallible in deedes which they dare not challenge in wordes This is the cause of the secret emnity betweene power of Kings and feruour of our Ghospell The Prince can neuer be assured of our Gospellers by the Principles of their Religion that their zeale to the Truth will not trouble the peace of his Kingdome nor Ghospellers of the Prince that his loue of temporall peace will not compell them to trust to his deceaueable definitions Whence it is manifest that so longe as the one shal be zealons and feruent to follow and preach what by light of the spirit they conceaue to be in Scâ—ipture occasions cannot be wanting to the other that will force him to vse his power to curbe their liberty Which power so long as he shal vsurpe so long as he will be Prince and Protestant he must needes vsurpe let him neuer expect that Ghospellers can loue his gouernment though they may flatter in outward shew Those men had no doubt the pure spirit of our Ghospell who professed that except they might haue the reâ—ormation they desired they would neuer be subiect to mortall man Looke vpon the first erecting of our Religion in Germany France Flanders Sweâ—eland Denmarke and Scotland you shall find that the Ghospell went not so fast vp but Kings and their authority went as fast downe What Bullenger writeth of Anabaptistâ— was the true course of our Reformers They began with Bishops pulling them from their seates they ended with Kings casting them froÌ„ their Thrones Books haue been written of this argument by no Papists that shew their practises and doctrines to be in the highest degree iniurious to Kings Luthers inuectiues I omitt not to pollute your eares Caluin is more modest yet so bould with Kinges as to write that when they resist the Ghospell they are not to be obeyed but rather we ought to sâ—it it in their faces This is nothing to that which HottomaÌ„ Beza Goodman Knox Vrsinus Buchanan to forbeare the naming of others innumerable haue writteÌ„ wherby they make Maiesty subiect to the peoples pleasure no more sure of his state then wethercocks that must turnâ— with the wind Vt sumat vt ponat secures Arbitrio popularis aurae What thinke you of these their propositions following Yf Princes be tyrants against God and his Truth their subiects are freed from their oath oâ— Allegiance The people are greateâ— then the King of greater authority The people haue the same power oâ—uer the King that the King hath oueâ— any one person The people haue right to bestow the Crown at their pleasure As the patient may choose the phisitiaÌ„ he likeâ—â— best reiect him at his pleasure so the people in whose free choice at the beginning it was to be vnder kings or no may when they be weary of their bad gouernment cast him from his Office into prison into irons put him to death and set whome they please to gouerne in his place Kings haue their authority from the people and the people may take it away againe as men may reuoke their letters of Attorney Yf kings without feare transgresse Gods Lawes they ought no more to be taken as magistrats but be examined accused condemned and punished as priuate transgressors When magistrats do not their duties God giueth the sword into the peopleâ— hand from â—e which no person King Queene 〈◊〉 Emperor is exempt being Idolater 〈◊〉 must dye the death These and the â—â—ke positions haue been inuented by â—â—e zealous professors of our Religion â—he same or worse were renewed and â—ttered by the feruerous reformers that â—roue for discipline in Queene Eliz. â—ayes that as a worthy prelat writes All the Popiâ—â— traitors that hitherâ—o haue written and all the Geneâ—ian Scottish Reformers come not neere â—hem for malicious and spiteful taunts â—or rayling and bitter tearmes for disâ—aineful and contemptuous speaches â—gainst Prince Bishops Counsailors â—ll other that stand in their way Their â—ecret practises to set vp by som meane â—r other sweete or violent the said â—isciplin haue neuer been interrupted â—r remitted as he doth particularâ—y relate beginning at the yeere 1560. â—o the yeere 1591. when was practised â—hat most blasphemous and barbarous â—reason of their counterfait Iesus-Christ Hacket and his two Prophets â—f mercy and vengeance who would â—aue planted the discipline by depriuing the Queene and murthering thâ— nobles that stood against it of
this his will gaue comâ—maundment to his people and effectuâ—ally stirred vp tâ—â—ir hartes to makâ— them Kings These are remote titleâ— and a farre of but it can neuer be proued that in making Saul and Dauiâ— Kings the peoples graunt did noâ— concur with Gods yea the Scripturâ— signifies that it did saying all the peoplâ— went to Galgala and made Saul King before thâ— Lord. The elders of Iudath and Israel annointeâ— Dauid King ouer them Philanax Some say the people made Saul anâ— Dauid Kings not by giuing them Kingly power this was from God only but by manifestinâ— that they were Kings by approuing them 〈◊〉 Kings made by God by putting them into thâ— possession of their Kingdomes to exercise regaâ— authority Aristobulus I know that Theodidact answereth 〈◊〉 this sorte but proof of his sayings 〈◊〉 bringeth none Doth he thinke the â—â—llar of Soueraignity stands firme inâ—â—gh vpon his bare word What if one â—â—y that the people did likewise conâ—â—r with God to make them Kings â—â—n Theodidact thinke you cleerly conâ—â—te him Verily this concourse of God â—â—d people to make a King is insinuaâ—â—d in Deuteronomy Thou shalt make him â—ing whom thy Lord God hath chosen for thee â—â—gnifying that God designed the perâ—â—n but the people made him King 〈◊〉 bestowing authority on him And â—â—ing God vseth not to do things onâ—â— by himselfe when secondary agents 〈◊〉 present sufficient to worke them â—â—y may we not thinke that God haâ—â—ng designed the persons of Saul and â—â—uid left the making them Kings to â—â—e people of the Iewes who had no â—â—â—se power then other free Commonâ—â—althes to constitute for themselues â—â—uernours and Kings Heere you may see in what danger to fall regall supremacy is which Thâ—â—odidact buildeth vpon this discourâ—â— Saul and Dauid had power only anâ— immediatly from God therfore thâ— same is to be beleeued of other Kingsâ— The antecedent is vncertaine and caâ— neuer be proued as hath beene saydâ— but much more seely is the coÌ„sequenâ—â— which extendeth Gods speciall fâ—â—uours shewed to his people in thâ— choice of their Kings to the generaliâ—â— of Kings and Nations God fed hâ—â— people in the desâ—rt with bread maâ—â— by the hands of Angells may we theÌ„â—â— inferre that men haue no bread bâ—â— coÌ„meth immediatly from heauen But to omit these Kings that werâ— by Gods expresse comission personallâ— designed that other Kings haue powâ—â— oÌ„ly froÌ„ God is a paradox which scarâ— any Christian Deuine houldes Câ—â—tholicks Puritans forraine Protâ—â—stants euen our English Conformâ—â—tants deriue regall authority from thâ— Commonwealth Let the truth bâ— tryed by the testimony of two Can â—ame any grauer Authors in oâ—â— Church then Doctor Bilson late Bishoâ— â—f VVinchester M. Hooker The first in â—is Treaâ—ise of Christian Subiection â—ebateth this question and defineth â—hat Kings are not only creatures of â—he Commonwealth but also in some â—ases may be deposed by the supreame â—urisdiction thereof And that Chilperick was iustly deposed by his Nobles and â—ipin chosen King in his place M. Hooker â—ath these wordes all publick regiment 〈◊〉 what kinde soeuer seemeth euidently to haue â—â—sen from deliberate aduise and consultation â—nd composition betwene men ordeyning the â—â—me and yeilding themselues subiect therevnto â—ithout which consent there were no reason â—aâ— one man should take vpon him to be Lord or â—udge ouer others And againe To Fathers â—â—aith he within their priuate â—amilies naâ—â—re hath giuen supreme power howbeit ouer â— whole grande multitude hauing no such deâ—â—ndency vpon any one and consisting of many â—â—milies impossible it is that any one shold haue â—â—mplete and full power without consent of â—â—n He graunteth indeed that some â—ings and law-makeâ—s as Moyses Saul â—â—uid were autâ—orized by God and by â—â—â—resse commission immediatly and personally â—â—aued â—roÌ„ him ouâ— of this case saith he the power of gouernment and making lawes 〈◊〉 commaund whole politik societies of men beâ—longeth so properly vnto the same entire socieâ—ties that for any Prince or Potentate vpon earâ—â— of what kindâ— soeuer to exercise the same 〈◊〉 himselfe not by authority deriued at the firâ—â— from their consent vpon whose persons they imâ—pose lawes it is no better then meere tyrannyâ— Thus he writeth and thus our own Authors ouerthrâ—w Theodidacts new piller of Soueraigntie proclayminâ— those Princes playne tyraÌ„ts that claymâ— power deriued from God and naturâ— and not originally from the grauâ—â— and coÌ„sent of their subiects For whicâ— their opinions reasons may be broughâ— very vrgent The practise of all Couâ—â—tryes that haue traÌ„sferred the Crownâ— from family to family haue restrayneâ— and enlarged the boundes thereof bâ— politick lawes What reason if we râ—â—spect only the law of God and naturâ— why Spaine shold be gouerned by a Mâ—â—narch rather then Venice That iâ— England women may succeede to thâ— Crowne froÌ„ which they are excludeâ— in France That in Scotland the Crownâ— descendeth to the neerest in blâ—ud aâ—◠〈◊〉 Poland the Kinge is made by the free â—â—oice of States What is the reason â—â—at by the law of nations the whole Commonwealth may be punished â—rought into bondage for the sinnes â—f their Prince Why shold the Princes â—â—ymes be imputed to them if it were 〈◊〉 their choice neither at the first to â—aue him nor afterward to want him â—ithout question â—he generall voice â—f hâ—mane kind is that Commonâ—ealthes haue power to make Princes â—nd vpon iust reason vnmake them â—nd therfore they are accountable to â—â—her neighbouring States if they adâ—it one to the Crowne with their inâ—â—ry or finding him incorrigible do â—ot remoue him Whence ariseth that â—â—onge inclination in subiects to fight â—â—r their Prince to wit from loue to â—â—stify their owne doings the States â—â—blick iudgment of their Princes â—orthines Philanax It cannot be well denyed but the â—â—nsent of the Commonwealth either â—â—e or enforced by Conquest concurâ—eth to the making of the Prince but Theodidact sayth that is not the originall and mediate fountaine oâ— this authorityâ— Heate moisture colde and our temper arising from them are preparations whereby our bodies are made fit receptacles for the soule but the Creator oâ— our soule is God so Princes haue their claymes and tiâ—les by election or conquest but the prime Author of their power is God as they receaue their power only from God sâ— for the good or euill administration thereof they are accountable only to God Aristobulus This discourse of Theodidact groundeth Royall authority vpon another vncertainty which Deuines debate iâ— their schooles whether royall poweâ— be produced by the Commonwealtâ— wheÌ„ Kinges are made or being createâ— by God together with mankind froâ— the bâ—ginning is communicated bâ— the Commonwealth to their Kingâ— Some say that the Commonwealâ—h making Kinges produceth a new kinâ— of power which before was not whence they inferre that the CommoÌ„â—wealth hath a more eminent authoritâ— â—hen the Kinge as being able to giue â—eing to his power others whom
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
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
And without doubt by this their familiar acquaintance with the word part of the horror against the action is lost Which may be the cause that where speach against the Pops authority for deposing of Kings hath been rifest most vulgar those Countries for practise against the life of their Kinges haue been most vnfortunate Whereas Spayne hath seene no such tragicall practise nor any attempt thereoâ— but hath enioyed a longe happy peace where the questions how to proceede with Tyrants are freely permitted to the schooles without any popular declamations agaynst Scholasticalâ— opinioÌ„s in this poynt Philanax I must confesse that I haue been my selfe much deceaued in my expectation about the sucâ—esse of Papists in this controuersy When I considered the circumstances of the contention the doctrine impugned not gratefull to Princes not so cleerly decided in their Church by some of their writers denied the person impugning by sword and penne a Monarch mighty learned beloued euen of Popish Potentates and this at a tyme of great aduantage vpon the gunpowder treason which was vrged as a sequell of this doctrine that euen the greatest fauorers therof seemed fearfull These circumstances made me think that Pâ—pery would receaue a great blow and that his Maiesty would draw the whole Church to be of his opinion What the successe hath been we see you haue shewed I could wish the Controuersy might not haue further progresse be now buried in silence that posterity may not say that Rome grew by his Maiesties opposition against it that this point of her authority was made renowned by victory ouer him what the Papists before did doubtfully defend the bloud of their Martyrs suffering vnder King Iames made certaine knowne illustrious And peace concluded about the silencing of this controuersy might be the beginning of an vniuersall agreement with that Sea seeing other doctrinall controuersies by discussion be brought to that yssue that as I haue heard some learned intelligent persons auerre a calme consultation void of priuate interest and animosity might soone end them Aristobulus This peace were much to be wished nor is it safe to mantaine strife with that Sea but vpon vnauoidable occasions And this is the fifth and last thinge which I wish you would seriously ponder and not wonder that this counsell should be suggested by mee that am no Paâ—â—st The knowne bad successe that Kings and Princes haue still had in their opposicions against the Romane Church may mooue sufficiently all faithfull Counsailors though not of the Popes Religion neuer if they may choose to engage their Soâ—craignes in such quarrelles Arioch the Ammonite Prince could tell Holosernes out of experience that his power and force would not be able to subdue the Iewes that in the end he would be repelled with disgrace yet he was not a Iew in ReligioÌ„ The like aduise Amonâ— Counsailors that were heathens gaueâ— him to desist in his quarrell against Mardochaus the Iew Thou canst not say they resist him he being of the stock of the Iewes but shalt fall beâ—ore him It was noted that when Octauâ—aâ— and Antony were youthes still in their games Octauian had the best wherupon a prudeÌ„t frend gaue Antony warning in ciuill controuersies neuer to encounter him Thou art said he more noble then he more eloquenâ— and better qualified yet I see cleerly his Genins is stronger theÌ„ thine if thou try the forâ—une of warre with him he will doubtles be Conquerour What the cause may be why it shold be so who knows but experieÌ„ce now a thousand and six hundred years oldâ— shewes that this is theâ— fate and felicity of that Sea to conquer with their patience and bring vndâ—â— subiection into nothing all the opponents against their doctrine or their authority The Roman Emperors for 300â— yeares together bloudily oppugned Christian Râ—ligâ—on but principally the Roman Sea in so much as thirty Bishops therof were martyred and the persecuting Emperors as S. Cyâ—rian saith were more greeued that a new high Priest was placed in that Sea then that a new Prince was chosen set vp against them What was the successe For those three Centuries of yeares scarce any Emperour that persecuted them can be named that deriued the Empire to a third heire or dyed not an vnfortunate death and in the end Constantine their Successor submitted the Empire to the obedience of the Roman Bishop wherin the Empeâ—ors that followed him contynued Afterward soâ—e Christian Emperors begaÌ„ to quarrell with the Church about the priuiledgeâ— and immunities of the Clergy specially Valentinian the third and the succeeding Emperors of the West Did they preuaile In their daies the westerne Empire began to decay The Franks tooke to theÌ„ France the Saxons Britanny and VVandalls Asrick the Visigothes Spaine the Gothes Italy â— which â—oone after were made Chriâ—â—â—ans and submitted their Kingdomes to the Pope and their Kings professed to receaue their Crownes authority from him Who knoweth not how pittifully the Easterne Emperors and the Patriarches of Constantinople vexed thâ— Pope for many ages which their quarrell they neuer would giue ouer till finally they fell into the miserable bondage slâ—uery of the Tuâ—ke wherin at this present without hope of remedy they grone What successe to omit many other experiences had the German Caesars that stroue with the Pope for the inuestiture of Bishops by staffe ringe Henry the 4. excommunicated and deposed by Gregory the 7. vpon that cause prospered for a while which this treatiser sets downe to encourage Princes to follow his example but he concealeth how in the end in punishment of his rebellion against his spirituall Father as Papists thinke he was deposed by his owne Sonne put in prison whence escaping he gathered forces was defeated brought to such want as he sued to be Sexton in a Churcâ—â— and serue Priests Masse who had most cruelly vexed the high Priest of Christians many yeares together Not admitted to that office he turned himself to begge of laymen in lamentable manner crying Haue mercy on me at least you my friendes for the hand of the Lord hath touched mee and so full of misery repentance and anguish of mind he pined away to death The newes whereof was receaued with generall ioy of all Christians And his Sonne though for a while he trode the steps of his Fathers disobedience yet finally he yielded vp his right in possession whereof the Roman Bishop is at thiâ— day Wherein not only the successe which Popes had against so potent Aduersaries as was Henry the 4. who fought more battaileâ— then euer did Iulius Caesar but their courage and confidence also was admirable Neither ought any discreete Protestant trust Theodidacts relatioÌ„ of HidelbraÌ„ds fainting in the quarrell taken out of Sigebert a partiall Monke seeing Papists bring 50. Historians that contradict him These whose fidelity can with no rea 〈…〉 called in question relate that he ended his life full of coÌ„stancy
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.