the cause and manner of it The famine of the kingdome and Elias miracle were the causes that king Ahab yeelded vp by a compact and publicke decree of the kingdome these false Prophets into Elias hands to be put to death according to Gods Law But Elias you say kild them What with his owne hand do you think the Prophet was a slaughter-man you will say no though they were not slaine by Elias hand yet by Elias authoritie You should say by his aduise rather then authoritie For Elias was a priuate man not a Magistrate But Ahab if Elias had not vrgd him had not slaine them I thinke so Elias mooued the king to do it but compeld him not Ahab gaue his consent with all Israel that the Baalitish priests who had seduced the king and kingdome should bee slaine being conuicted by Gods law For whenas a greeuous famine grew vpon them and that no raine could fall but at the word of Elias as hee had foretold Ahab before the drought being accused to Ahab to be the procurer of the famine and troubler of Israel defendeth himselfe and testifieth before the king that God had sent that plague vpon all Israel because he and his Fathers house had forsaken the commandements of God and worshipped strange Gods And to make his word good he offered before all Israel vpon paine to loose his head that the king and his people were seduced by Baals priests and that he would make it plain by a miracle that is with fire sent downe from heauen which should make it appeare whose sacrifice God did approue promising that they should haue plenty of raine after the conuersion of Israel to the true God and that he was sent to that end at that time The King accepts the condition all the rest giue their consents and when they plainly perceiued by the miracle of Elias that the Baalites were conuicted to be the deceiuers and should haue cast downe themselues vpon their faces and giuen glorie to God as the people did and should most humbly haue submitted them-selues to the truth of God Elias did aduise them to lay hands on the Baalites and to punish them with death by Gods law due to such seducers and deceiuers So Elias perswaded Ahab and all Israel to consent to the slaughter of the Baalites with a publike decree Therefore by the consent of the King the decree of the kingdome in so extreame necessitie by so notable a miracle wrought by the Prophet not by Elias hand but by his perswasion the people did in publike place put to death those Baalitish impostors according to the law of God publikely convicted How can you draw this example to your purpose Will you reason after this manner False Prophets may rightly be put to death by Magistrates therefore Princes may rightly be deposed by Priests I will not send you to the schooles to learne better Logicke but to * An I le in Thessaly where Eleborus groweth that purgeth Melancholie Anticyra to purge your foolish braine if you dispute after this manner § 41 But you will say hee consumed Ochasias captaines and souldiers with fire calld downe from heauen How Ochosias souldiers were destroyed by whom Elias spake the word God performed the deed That fire from heauen was not in Elias power but in Gods will And if Elias had not receiued a speciall instinct of Gods spirit to that end he durst neuer haue called for fire from heauen for that had been plainly to haue tempted God which Christ reproued in his Apostles desirous to imitate Elias As these were extraordinarie so by no meanes you can thence draw a conclusion for disputation or an ensample for imitation no more then you can allow of thest because Israel by Gods command spoyled the Egyptian or perswade that one kill himselfe because Sampson killd himselfe or teach that one may curse and kill vnhappy boyes because Elizeus handled fortie two in that manner that calld him bald pate in Bethell But here I doe acknowledge you to be very peruerse followers of Elias How the Papists differ from Elias in their fire-workes in that you goe about to vse consuming fire for Elias calld downe for fire from the height of heauen but you haue fetcht it vp from the depth of hell Elias by the instinct of God you by the instigation of the Diuell And yet Elias did not once touch the King much lesse depose him but you went about not only to depose the King but vtterly to consume the King with all his excellent progenie and kingdome But Elias you say did by Gods appointment anoint § 42 Iehu King ouer Israel and cast off Ahabs sonne and all his house for euer bearing rule in the kingdom Elias did not annoint Iehu but one of the sonnes of the Prophets whom Elizeus sent and chargde him in the name of God not in Elizeus name marke but in the name of God that Iehu should take sword in hand and roote out Ahabs house The King therefore was not cast off by the prophet but slaine by Iehu to whom God had giuen Ahabs kingdom that he might destroy Ahab and all his house and posteritie Now if you please let vs weigh your argument God may rightly giue a Kingdome to whom he will and by name stirre vp a subiect to punish his masters sinne therefore the Pope may rightly doe the same What Catholike King can be safe from the conspiracies of his subiects if once he begin to displease the Pope With such arguments our English Iesuites haue gone about to bewitch ou men that they may take away the liues of our most worthy Princes Be they not the very slaues of Antichrist and members of the Diuell who do flatter the Pope with such argumēts to the destruction of Kings § 43 But Elias did cast downe and destroy Kings that is to say did foretell they should be cast downe if you beleeue Hugo the Cardinall Hugo the Cardinal expounding Ieremie And Ieremie was set ouer Kingdomes to plant and roote out to build vp and plucke downe Kingdomes that is as that learned Cardinall expounds it I haue appointed you saith God to pull vp that is to threaten the Iewes that they shall be cast out of their owne countrey and that you destroy that is that you prophesie that the Citie of Ierusalem shall be destroyed and that you disperse that is that you foretell that they shall be dispersed by the Chaldean Princes and that yee scatter abroad that is foreshew that the kingdome of the Iewes shall be scattered abroad after the captiuitie And that the Iewes should not be cast into despaire hee did not only foreshew their captiuitie but their deliuerance also adding that he should build vp that is shew that the Citie should be re-edified and that you should plant that is tell the Iewes that they shall be planted in Iurie This literall sense Hugo the Cardinall did giue that I may omit the mysticall
the scepter the myter the crowne No maruell you say for then the Christian Byshops wanted temporall forces They might wel haue excommunicated and deposed Princes Ala contâ—exec Angli inst pa 167. if the Church had had power enough to resist As two great Masters of not building vp but of destroying diuinitie haue taught Alan and Bellarmine Bellar de Rom. Pont. lib. 5. cap. 7. So I beleeue the Apostle Paul when he saw the antient Christians to be few in number and weak in power § 58 taught them then not to resist the power How Paul vsed Princes belike he serued the time not the truth when he taught that subiects should be subiect to Nero for conscience sake For when they were encreased in number and power if wee beleeue these Cardinalls they should no more suffer as patient Martyrs but take vpon them like boasting souldiers For so they haue corrected the Apostles discipline with their worthy interpretation and put out the crowes eyes as the prouerbe is and haue wisely altered the rules of the holy Ghost which ought to be perpetuall and immutable to the practise of the Church as the case required But one thing I doubt much they cannot wipe away It is damnation to resist the power saith the Apostle Moses what is it then to lay violent handes vpon him Moses forbad that the people should not speake euill of their Gouernour would hee haue suffered Salomon if they could to resist him Salomon forbad that none should curse the king secretly in his conscience did hee grant by force to cast him off if they had might to do it Iudas Iudas the Apostle did stile them fitly Dreamers that spake ill of gouernment and despise such as bee in authoritie would he take these Cardinalls for holy Doctours who perswade the people to driue the king out of his kingdome if they can Let vs beleeue it if it be possible that Moses Salomon § 59 and Iudas the Apostle when they would haue the subiects tongues to bee tied vp they would leaue their hands to be loose Ieremy the Prophet exhorted the exiled Iewes that they should offer vp their prayers for the life of the King of Babylon Paul the Apostle did aduise the persecuted Christians to pray to God for the safety of Nero. Is it eredible that the Prophet and the Apostle for whom they would haue subiects praiers poured out that they would haue their blood to bee poured out vnlesse you thinke the Apostle was like to Charles the fift who commanded that publike prayers should bee made for the deliuerance of Clement the 7. whenas his owne legions kept him captiue I expect that the Cardinals doe thus expound the place of the Apostle to haue commanded them to haue prayed for Nero because they wanted force to resist which if they had got they might iustly haue gone from praying to violence and from orizons to weapons O warlike priests In the meane while what wrong do they offer to Peter and Peters successors who suffered death for Christ whom they insinuate not to haue wanted courage but power to resist And they make goodly Martyrs if when they died for the truth deliuered rebellious soules out of their afflicted bodies Tertul. in Apo. leget And I wonder that two so learned Cardinals were so ignorant of the historie to say that Christians might lawfully haue resisted if they had had strength when Tertullian doth alleage that they had power but might not lawfully resist Which if it may bee truely said of the second age after Christ how much more in the fourth fift and sixt age whenas Christians being graced by Princes and defended by lawes might professe the § 60 Catholike religion openly and freely It is an not able saying of Austen August in Ps 124. that the Christian souldiers did obey Iulian the Apostata their temporall Lord not because as these men dreame they wanted power to resist Christian souldiers obeyed Iulian. but for the Lord eternall For the souldiers in their warre against the Persians might easily haue surprised Iulian being farre from home Sâ—cra lib. 3. cap. 22. and succour But they were you will say Pagane souldiers Yea forsooth as Socrates tells vs the next day after Iulians death when Iouinian was chosen Emperour by them he refused that honor because he suspected the greater part of the armie to be heathenish all of them cryed out with one voice that they were Christians The Fathers writ against Iulian they fight not they vsed their pennes not their armes they strooke the Apostata with their arguments not with their weapons as they dealt afterward with Constantius and Valens hereticall Emperors But your Cardinals and Fathers do vndertake the § 61 businesse against Princes not with the penne but with the sword assoone as they bee denounced excommunicate for heresie and releasing their subiects from the Oath of allegeance tell them they may beare armes against them hauing beene sometimes their Princes and doe obtrude this as a principall head of Catholicke Religion making much for the saluation of their soules Although I haue lighted vpon some who before the sentence denounced by the Church hold that an hereticall Prince by right for the very act Caietane is to be remoued forcibly by the subiects But Caietane denieth that the subiects may be absolued before the sentence bee publickely denounced Very franckly that he will allow somewhat to an hereticall Prince But Alanus will haue all Heretickes not only after they be by name particularly denounced Alanus but by law and ipso facto as they say assoone as they beginne to appeare hereticall or be by law excommunicated should be put from their kingdomes For as Fame so Heresie Gathers strength by going forward Alanus is somewhat more earnest in the matter then Caietane who pronounceth that warre to be holy iust and honourable which subiects vndertake against their hereticall Prince and doth aduise the valiant Englishmen to take part with the enemie against the Queene But after our Cardinall had deliuered his opinion as Apollo from his three footed stoole Philop. 194. Philopater doth boldly affirme that it is an opinion certaine and of faith and vndoubtedly held of all the learned and agreeable to Apostolicall doctrine that euery Christian Prince if he flatly fall from the Catholicke religion and call others from the same to fall presently from all his power and dignitie by the force of Gods law and mans law and that before the sentence of the supreame Pastor and Iudge be denounced against him and that all manner of subiects are free from euery bond of Oath which they should by obedience haue performed to a lawfull Prince and that they may and ought if they haue power cast out from the gouernment of Christians such a man as an Apostata or Hereticke and a Renegate from Christ the Lord and an vtter enemie to the common weale § 62 There is an
that he commanded warre to be raised wherein hee might be slaine he answeres in Tortus How the Papists may kill a King how not that Bellarmine spake not of murther which may happen in battaile but of that murther which may be committed by a royster A very honest distinction As though hee bee not as well a murtherer who at the command of the Pope doth kill the King by open force Cardinall Comensis incited Parry to kill Q. Elizabeth as he that shall doe it by secret treacherie That this Cardinall threatning warres armes is no honester then Cardinall Comensis whose letters are extant wherein he encouraged Parry with promise of reward and pardon from the Pope that hee should bring to good effect the purpose of his good spirit those were his wordes that is that he should murther Queene Elizabeth with his dagger Bellarmine proued no better to our excellent King Iames but somewhat the closer Did Peter feede the Church after this manner This is not foode but poyson Did he so guide the flock of his Master as if the chiefe belweather of the flocke went astray he would take care that he should either closly or openly be slaine Giue a Shipheards crooke to a Shepheard What hath a Shipheard to doe with a sword Yes forsooth saith he when Christ made Peter a Pastor hee made him a Prince For when hee commanded him to feed he commanded him to rule And he gaue him not only a ministery but a magistracy But good Sir the inward and spirituall gouernment is one thing which Peter exercised ouer soules by the worde the Sacraments and the keies the earthly and outward gouernment is another thing which Paul the 5 doth practise by fraude and force against crownes I pray you tell mee Calander what difference you make betweene these two and the Commentaries of the Fathers and their owne popish writers Marke the consequencies depending on this interpretation partly foolish partly wicked Peter is commanded to feede the flocke of Christ § 150 Therefore none but Peter Vpon Peter is laide the charge of feeding and teaching Therefore the honour of ruling and reigning is bestowed on him Peters dutie is to teach Kings Therefore to depose Kings To instruct Kings therefore to destroy Kings To Peter is granted a spirituall regiment therefore an earthly gouernment Whether doth hee that knits together such consequences and these are necessarily gathered out of Bellarmines interpretation seeme to be sent to the schooles or to the Anticira for a purge Charge is laid Calander vpon all true Pastors in Peter to feede and rule the flocke of Christ committed to their charge but so that they feede them with the spirituall foode of wholesome doctrine and rule them with the staffe of wholesome discipline But if Paul the 5. doe not feede the flocke but feede vpon it and doe not order the steppes of his sheepe but breake their legges and their heades truly he doth giue food and vse his shepheardes staffe otherwise then Christ appointed Wherefore I thinke King Iames would rather fast then bee fed by such a Shepheard who feedeth to that end that hee may kill and eat What other Kings doe let themselues looke to it let them laugh in their sleeues as they please when they read these foolish quiddities of Schollers but let them take heede of such wicked baites of rebellion which lurke in Bellarmines new Dictionarie Wherein To feede and to rule are 〈◊〉 To teach a King and to depose a King all one The excommunication of a King and depriuation The absoluing of sinners from sâ—â—e is the absoluing subiects from their duty § 151 Doe they not perceiue that this is the Grammer of that proud and bloody Antichrist Therefore King Iames doth willingly forsake the popish flocke that hee may betake himselfe to Gods flocke which is knowne of Christ and followeth him and flieth from a stranger For he doth not regard these carnall Cardinalls so leaden-pated in their arguing Peter is the Porter of heauen Therefore the Lord of the world Peter is a Pastor therefore a Prince Peter is a Fisher of men therefore of kingdomes A net was giuen him wherewith he may take fishes as well great as little Therefore he hath gouernment aswell ouer Kings as subiects Peter is charged to feede the sheepe therefore he is charged to feede the rest of the Apostles He is twise charged to feede Lambes therefore the Iewes and Gentiles and by consequent all Christians Do not these hange together as a sickmans dreames Doth not Bellarmine seeme to expose the Scripture to mockery when he reasoneth after this fashion against Aquinas rule who doth plainely deny that symbolicall diuinitie Bellarmine buildeth his Church gouernment vppon tropes hath any force to argue whereon for all that hee hath built the whole supremacy and doth pronounce it to be a doctrine of the Catholicke faith most plainly founded vpon the Scriptures The Philosophers doe laugh at Epicure for making the world of moates And will not Diuines hisse out Bellarmine that frameth the ecclesiasticall gouernment of tropes For truely you shall assoone finde Moores Vtopia in the world as Peters Monarchy in the text Which Article notwithstanding is fained to bee the cheefe article of the Popes Creede wherein are contained many articles aswell of superstition and Idolatrie as of conspiracie and rebellion So that Poperie is nothing else but a plaine catechisme of false faith toward God and the King For that double power ecclesiasticall and temporall § 152 which you faine to bee so inwardly ioyned to the supremacy that it cannot be separated from it you haue erected as a double engine to ouerthrow the truth of diuinity and the Kings dignity For you haue translated each of them as it were from Peter to the Pope and the Popes successour which you assume and proue not Ecclesiasticall whereby by excommunication he may binde Kings and absolue subiects not only from sinnes but from vowes lawes and oathes So by excommunication the Pope stealeth away crownes from Kings and soules from subiects while he taketh away authority from the one and obedience from the other In both he breaketh Gods will wherby the ciuill power of the Prince though he be euill and the obedience of the subiect is soundly established as I haue fully and at large satisfied you in the former Dialogue and I haue no lesse infringed the Popes temporall iurisdiction where you alleadged it In the meane while there was no reason this insolent Cardinall should tearme Kings Catholike in the faith if once they began to bee wicked vnruly râ—mmes Bellarmines sawcinesse iustly reprooued and Protestant Kings and Princes rauenous wolues himselfe being a goate and a foxe he durst not I say call them so but that hee thinketh Kings to be very patient Who if they remembred themselues to bee Kings would teach this sawcy and busie Cardinall to follow his holy studie and not to trouble himselfe with Kings affaires Neither would they
may be sayd of the secular tyrannicall power as of Tyberius and Nero which may be said of the Popish tyrannicall power as of Gregorie the 7. or Paul the 5. true in respect of the abuse But the ordination of the secular power is of God the abuse of the Diuell Therefore Pilates power which condemned Christ is not sayd to bee tolerated from aboue but giuen from aboue It was therefore a wicked power not a vsurped power as Austin thought wicked in respect of tyranny not vsurped in respect of the ordination but the power of this Prelate I may say this Pilate as Bernard spake it is not onely wicked but vsurped I conclude therfore out of the Apostles principle for the secular power against Bellarmine All power ordained is immediately from God by the witnesse of Paul All secular power whether it bee by the people by the Princes or by the King is a power ordained For reason which is a glimmering of the diuine light doth suggest that all societies must be subiect to one of these whether it bee simple or mixt for the good of common safety Therefore all secular power is immediatly from God § 171 But the title of the power is not diuine but humane therefore the secular Prince hath mediately power and gouernment to rule ouer these or those subiects Bellarmine in his answer to a booke entituled an answer of a Doctor of Diuity to an Epistle written to him by a reuerend freind of the monition of the censures from the Pope denounced against the Venetians either election comming betweene as the Emperour or succession as the Kings of France Spaine and England or grant as the free Princes as the Popes in their own Dominion for so he might haue sayd or by iust war as Godfrey heretofore c. Very ignorantly He doth not distinguish between the title of the power and the power it selfe The title is the condition without the which the power is not obtained to this or that King ouer those or these subiects The power is that authority and iurisdiction which God doth giue immediately to a Prince as Paul teacheth The Cardinall therfore vniesuited as I may so say did abuse that most renowned French King If any man said he should demand of the most Christian King by what right hee holdeth France or maketh Lawes hee shall not answer by the Law of God but by the title of hereditarie succession Yea truely the noble King might haue answered otherwise according to that wit wherewith hee was endued being demanded why he bare rule ouer his subiects or made lawes That hee did it not by the right of hereditarie succession but by the ordinance of that power which hee receiued immediately from God Inheritance doth not giue that power but it is a property necessarie in that man to whom God doth immediately giue that power That subiects may giue reuerence to their Kings not for blouds sake but for Gods sake Goe to and what if one should demand of Paul the fift by what right hee holdeth his Popedome he will answer as he is taught not by the title of mans election but by the Law forsooth of God Therfore the Popes power is by Gods Law as it seemeth although his election bee by the Cardinals Why then may not the Kings power be by the Law of God thogh his succession be from his ancestours for whose condition seemes to be like why should their iurisdiction be dislike The Cardinall therefore deales very vniustly who denieth that to the King which he granteth to the Pope § 172 But the malapert Cardinall did trie the patience of the most Christian King The cruell dealing of the Iesuites with the French King as another of his order a bloody nouist strucke out his tooth when he meant to cut his throat But now the Iesuites doe blesse the King but the King as oft as he cheweth his meate its maruell he doe not curse the Iesuites who while the controuersie depended about the expulsion of the Iesuites receiued a wound from Iohn Chastile and the bloud issued out of his mouth spake pleasantly as his vse was Now at the last the Iesuites being conuicted by my mouth must bee cast out That his friends may greeue that they were brought backe againe by that mouth as innocent and cleered who were the authours of so cruell a murther whose scholler did thrust that valiant King to the heart After the same manner Tom. 11. Baronius that testie olde man did entertaine the Catholike King Philip the second the Champion of their Church for with-holding Sicilie and Naples from the Church Whom will they spare if they spare not the Spaniard What may the Defender of the Faith expect of these fellowes who doe thus entertaine the Christian and Catholike Kings But although there be no truth yet there is some equitie in Bellarmine Bellarmines lewde dealing with all Princes Hee spareth no Princes not those of his owne side Hee holdeth that those who bee Catholike in faith if they beginne to be wicked are to be driuen by the cheife Pastour from the flocke and depriued of their kingdome as well as heretickes Those as giddie headed rammes that they hurt not with their hornes these as rauenous wolues that they deuoure not the flocke So scornfully doth this Braggadochian Cardinall terme the Excellencies and Maiesties of the Christian world The world doth not maruel that Preists be so sawcy but it wonders that Kings bee so patient that they will suffer Princely crownes to be tumbled vp and down by them as foot-bals and the prerogatiues of kingdomes to be so weakned diminished by schoole distinctions For this Cardinall like a bad archer doth strike his confederate next neighbour-kings while he doth directly leuell and aime but in vaine against Iames the King of Great Britaine whom God still defend from his treacherie But to the argument Hee denieth all secular Princes to haue any power immediately giuen from God to rule ouer subiects But it is well that hee doth affirme euen in the same § 173 chapter in as manie words that secular Princes haue power immediately from God to rule their subiects as they are superiors and he alleageth a good reason because the commandement of obedience is immediately from God and this is true For he cannot bee superiour and aboue other if he doe not rule neither can he be a subiect that is not bound to obey And yet againe in the end If secular Princes saith he haue no power immediately from God ouer the Laity much lesse ouer the Cleargie therefore ouer none Which hee granted before Is it so indeede will some say yea truely looke vpon the place Hee is both vnconstant vnlearned you shall see Bellarmine affirming and denying the same predicate of the same subiect and that in respect of the same and that in one and the same chapter Let this great Logician be packing who sends his aduersaries to turne ouer Aristotles
sense whereby the Prophets doctrine doth vnderstand that the kingdome of sinne should be rooted out and destroyed and the kingdome of vertue should bee planted and aduanced in the conscience § 44 We haue examined your examples whence you inferre a conclusion that ill hangs together first that Kings rightly created and annointed may rightly be put downe I answer that one of the Kings you named was put downe and that was Ahab not by Elias not by Elizeus but by Iehu whom God by his owne mouth raised vp by name The deposing therefore of the King was not effected by the Prophet but by a Prince by name appointed to that purpose What doth this helpe your cause Saul was not deposed it is manifest that his posteritie was cut of from the succession of the kingdome and not his person from the present possession Ierobâ—am was by the Prophet sharpely reproued not violently expelled Ozias as a Leper was remoued from the gouernment not the right of his kingdome Athalia was neuer rightly created and for the cruell murthering of the Kings of-spring was put to death not by the Priests but the Kings authoritie The second conclusion is very idle for what causes the Kings in fact are to be secluded What shall you neede to enquire for what causes they be deposed when you doe not proue they should bee deposed Athalia was taken away neither for apostacie nor heresie but because shee vsurpt the Crowne against the lawfull heyre apparant God commended the acts of Ozias but detested his pride Ieroboam both an Apostata and an Idolater and yet neuer set beside the cushion Achab the Idolater was cast of with all his race but by the Magistrate not by the Priest The causes therefore which you alledge helpe your cause no whit at all The last conclusion which concernes the persons of § 45 the deposers is very lame You say that God vsed the ministerie of the Prophets and the Priests to that purpose either ordinarie or extraordinarie as iudges and executors of Gods will God did vse the tongues as I said of the Prophets and Priests to foretell and denounce those plagues which God decreed to bring vpon those Kings and sometimes hee vsed their hands to annoint those whom by name he appointed to be the successors of the kingdome but hee neuer vsed them either ordinarie or extraordinarie either iudges or executioners of his will in deposing them He vsed them as messengers who with their liuely voice did deliuer Gods decrees to Kings either deposed or appointed by God other execution or authoritie they had none which is very farre from that power of the Pope whom you challenge to be the ordinarie Iudge Tutor and Corrector of Kings And doe you endure his ferula ô yee Kings will you kisse the rodd that hath so often paid you and by this your patience make your Tutor more curst and whip you the more But I come now to you Saturaine § 46 You haue not of my word you haue not one Priest or Prophet vnder the old Testament that deposed a King Kings deposed Priests but I haue a King that deposed a Priest Whom you will say Abimilech I speake not of Saul who slew Abimelech for taking part with Dauid I passe ouer Ioash the King who commanded Zachariah Zacharia Iehoidas sonne to be stoned to death forgetting his fathers virtue and dutie What say you to Salomon who displaced Abiathar the high Priest from his primacie and dignitie Abiathar because he followed Adoniahs faction being the elder brother When it would haue followed by your conclusion that Salomon was rather to be deposed because the High Priest thought Adoniahs right to the kingdome to be better then Salomons § 47 But whereas you added that Princes hold their soueraigne dignitie and authoritie receiued from God because truth drew that speech from you which falls out very seldom I accept it willingly and thence conclude that God alone hath the power of putting downe Kings who alone set them vp and that Kings are bound to giue accompt to God alone from whom they receiued that honour But whereas you make the end of supreme princely maiestie receiued of God to be the promoting of the true worship and honor of God and the reteyning of the people in the faith and feare of the Lord I maruell what it ment that when alwaies you denie that a King should meddle with spirituall affaires and busines now as if you were forgetfull of your owne minde Alanus you direct the chiefe end and scope of the Kings dignitie to set forward the worship of God to stirre vp others to honor his high Lord and to preserue the people in the faith and feare of God We accept of your grant but that which you adde that Priests and Prophets haue opposed them-selues against Kings in all those matters How Priests ought to oppose Princes which may bring either dishonor to God or ouerthrow to religion or damnation to soules I am affraid vnlesse you expound your selfe more plainly wee may not grant it vnto you For if you say they opposed themselues as men of God and did earnestly admonish them by word and counsell or else did sharply reproue such Princes we doe willingly acknowledge the freedome of their holy vocation but to take vpon them to be Iudges ouer Kings by their rule and authoritie and do either iudicially depriue them or violently inuade them we detest the pride of such a turbulent spirit But betweene God and the King there is a certaine § 48 couenant which alwaies is of force either openly or secretly Be it so The couenant between God and the King And what if the King do breake some article of the league who shall accuse him before what iudgement seate before what Iudge shall hee be endighted shall it be in the Court of the common people who for fashion sake haue made choice and accepted of the King or in the consistorie of a Bishop who hath annointed and consecrated him I see what you meane to answer a Bishop who hath conditionally annoynted him if he breake the condition and couenant made with God hath againe depriued him and hath shewed iustice against him in the name of God who hath abused his supreme authoritie The Scripture recites nineteene Kings of Israel and § 49 fourteene of Iuda No bad King of 33 deposed by a Priest who brake the couenant made with the Lord and worshipped strange gods and draue the people to apostasie shew me any one of them to be depriued by a Priest or a Prophet because they had broken their first couenant and take the cause if you cannot leaue of to tell an vntruth and to crosse your own speech whom wee euen now heard confessing that Kings doe hold their supreme authoritie receiued from God not then from a Priest not from the people and that therefore they are not bound if they breake their couenant to giue