GOD AND THE KING.  
OR A DIALOGUE Wherein is treated of Allegiance due to our most Gracious Lord, King james, within his Dominions.  
WHICH (by removing all Controversies, and causes of Dissensions and Suspicions) bindeth Subjects, by an inviolable band of Love & Duty, to their Sovereign.  
Translated out of Latin into English.  
Printed at Cullen. M. DC. XX.   

To the Reader.  
THE former Dialogue, set forth under thi● same Title, GOD AND THE KING (the persons of the same being Theodidactus and Philalethes, the first signifying One taught of God, the other, A lover of Truth) did ●eed explication in diverse points, aswell in regard of the verity of the discourse, as also for the more safety both of Kings and their Kingdoms. Wherefore it was thought good, that in this present Dialogue two other persons should treat of the same subject, Aristobulus, that is, A good Counsellor, and Philanax, A Lover of Kings: of which the one wisheth all good unto Kings; the other suggesteth what he judgeth best for their State. And so in few words (gentle Reader) thou hast the scope of both Dialogues. Farewell.   

GOD AND THE KING.  Philanax. 
You are well met Aristobulus: your countenance and gesture import, that your thoughts are much busied. What may b● the occasion of these Meditations?  Aristobulus. 
I have lately perused a short Treatise entitled GOD AND THE KING, the Author whereof undertaketh to show the grounds & foundations of royal Sovereignty, and of the Oath of Allegiance.  Philanax. 
Why should the perusal of the Treatise cause such admiration in you? I am sure you, b●ing a Professor of the Gospel, are no● of their number, that seek to depress Kingly power, or think much that Kings should oblige their subjects to them by Oaths.  Aristobulus. 
My profession, and my deeds declare sufficiently my dutiful affection to Kings, my high esteem of their authority, my detestation of all treason, hollowness, and insincerity towards them. I approve the doctrine of this Dialogue, 
Dial. God and the King pag. 2.  that under the pious and reverend appellations of Father and Mother, are comprised, not only our natural Parents, but likewise all higher Powers, and especially such as have sovereign authority, as Kings & Princes, who more expressly, than any Governors, represent the person & majesty of one God, ruling the whole world, and are his substitutes & lieutenants, every one within his own Kingdom. 
Dial. p. 33. & 34.  The subject may not touch his sovereign with any hurtful touch, nor stretch out his hand against his sacred person, nor affright, nor disgrace him by cutting the lap ●f his garment, not hurt him in word, no not ●o much as in thought. He must discharge his manifold duties towards him, by paying tribute for his regal support: by fight his battles with joab: adventuring his life with David to vanquish his enemies: Revealing with religion's Mardochaeus treasonable designments against him: by pouring out prayer's ●nd supplications for his welfare: by esteeming and honouring him from the heart, and out of conscience, as the anointed o● the Lord, God's holy Ordinance and Minister, and as a God upon earth. These doctrines I allow; and these duties towards Princes whosoever infringeth, either by tumults or seditions against his state, or by treacherous and violent attempts against his person, deserve as violators of Gods will, contemners of natures ●aw, and enemies to the good of their Country, to be punished & persecuted ●o death by sword and fire.  Philanax. 
Seeing then that the Treatise you speak of doth so fully declare the duty of Allegiance to the King: what ●roubleth you therein, that your countenance discovereth dislike?  Aristobulus. 
To commend allegiance in general terms, simply and plainly conceived, is most allowable & necessary in these times. But bold, or rather desperate Treatises, such as this is, that disclose the mysteries of Regal Prerogative, which, 
speech in the Star-chamber. 16.6.  as his Majesty well noteth, ought not to be searched into: that ground the authority of Kings so necessary for mankind, upon doubtful curiosities: that move questions about depositions, both disgraceful to Majesty, and odious to the subjects: such Treatises (I say) do more harm then good: and without doubt the first Authors of such conceits be secret enemies to Kingly government, and by this stratagem would craftily undermine what hitherto in vain they have assaulted openly.  Philanax. 
I am persuaded the Treatise you mention was not written by any Papist: nor that any of that generation ●ad their hand in it. Who then may we think be these underminers of Monarchy you speak of?  Aristobulus. 
I would to God it were hard to name them: or that every one could not point with his finger at that profession which from her cradle hath ever been a mortal enemy 〈◊〉 Kings. That the first planters of the Gospel in this age rooted the same in rebellion and in hatred to Monarchy, neither we nor any of their best friends can deny. 
Bancroft in the Dangerous positions p. 33.  Our late Archbishop excuseth them, that their zeal was very great, the light of the Gospel (saith he) then first appearing unto them, so dazzled their eyes, that they did not well consider what they did. Without doubt so it was, and so it will ever be, where the pure light, as they call it, of this Gospel shineth, and zeal thereof fervently burneth, there can be no assured allegiance to the Prince. This (I confess) is no small blemish to the Religion, which I would conceal, did not love to his Majesty force me to speak. And the reason why it must needs be so is evident.  
A true spirit zealous in Religion can never be quiet in the business of salvation, and in questions and Controversies of Faith, ●●ll he find some ground infallible whereon he may rest. The Papist holds that the Pope's sentence, specially in general Counsels, is the infallible decider of Controversies, upon which he reposes his conscience. And by submitting every one his private judgement to the sentence of a supreme judge, they gain peace and unity among themselves, and their judge, still when he defines, being (as they pretend) assisted by God's spirit, they are secured from error. An easy and sweet way to end Controversies had it pleased God to have appointed it, 
Psal. 84. v. 16.  wherein verity and charity m●et, justice (doctrine I say just with God's word) kisseth with peace: 
2. Thessaly. ●. 2. v. 10.  and Christians might have enjoyed what S. Paul so highly commendeth, charity of ●●uth. But our Authors constantly affirm, that since the Apostles, God granted no such privilege to any Pastor, nor would bestow so great blessing on his Church, as to have perpetually such a visible governor to decide her doubts 
— nimium vobis Romana propago  
visa potens, superi, propria haec si dona fuissent.  Wherefore by the consent of the Churches which we call reform, the spirit of God deciding Controversies, which Papists tied to the Pope and his Counsels, was given to every 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 use of Scriptures, their authority to judge definitions of the Church by Scriptures. The devisers of this way seemed to have great zeal of the truth, but were not careful to provide for peace. And so in practice this device begot a multitude of Sects and Religions, one against another, that many, weary of all, began to think it were better men should be united in error, than thus mortally divided in Truth.  
A mean was devised to decide Controversies by national Synods, that are confessed may err, but the Civil magistrate, as our chief Divines teach, as being Precedent in them, is to compel his subjects by the sword to embrace those doctrines that be determined (be they true or falls.) For this course (say they) was appointed by God, 
Hooker Ecclesiast. pol. prefac. p. 28.  who thought it better in the eye of his understanding, that sometimes an erroneous definitive sentence should prevail, than that strifes should have respite to grow and not come speedily to some end. here desire of peace & concord may seem to have made these men less zealous of the Truth than behoved them. So it opened a gap (specially in England) to profanes & irreligiosity, which is to be just of the King's Religion whatsoever it be, or rather of none.  
A salve for this sore hath been invented: that subjects ought to obey their Prince's Laws and definitions, 
Hooker ibid. p. 29.  when they have only probabilities against them, not when they have necessary and demonstrative reasons, which discharge the conscience and give liberty to resist. This caveat and salve for Truth sets the wound of dissension again a bleeding. Sects in the world are now almost infinite for number: amongst which not one is found that pretendeth not clear and evident demonstration, and proof from holy Scripture for their contrary and repugnant opinions. And who shall iudg in this contradiction and confusion whose reasons are necessary and demonstrative? The arguments which we think demonstrative, move Papists nothing at all, and arguments which we iudg of no force, Puritan (as Archbishop Bancroft writeth of them) take to be so urgent, that, 
Survey of the holy discipline. p. 93.  if every hair of their head were a several life, they would give them all in the cause. This controversy therefore, whose reasons are demonstrative 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 temporal Prince. Prince's therefore for conservation of peace, must keep the spirit in awe, practising power infallible in deeds, which they dare not challenge in words. This is the cause of the secret enmity between power of Kings, and fervour of our Gospel. The Prince can never be assured of our Gospelers by the Principles of their Religion, that their zeal to the Truth will not trouble the peace of his Kingdom: nor gospellers of the Prince, that his love of temporal peace, will not compel them to trust to his deceivable definitions. Whence it is manifest, that so long as the one shallbe zealous and fervent, to follow, and preach what by light of the spirit they conceive to be in Scripture, occasions cannot be wanting to the other that will force him to use his power to curb their liberty. Which power, so long as he shall usurp (& so long as he will be Prince and Protestant he must needs usurp) let him never expect that gospellers can love his government, though they may flatter in outward show.  
Those men had (no doubt) the 
(a) Ba●il. Dor. p 40. &. 41.  pure spirit of our Gospel, who professed, that except they 
(b) Knox. histor. of the Church of Scot p. 265. Dang. po●it. p. 11.  might have the reformation they desired, they would never be subject to mortal man. Look upon the first erecting of our Religion in 
(c) Sleydan. l. 28. & l. 22. O●ian. Epist. cent. 16. p. 566.  Germany, 
(d) Cuspin. of the Church of France p. 625 Ferres histor. p. 588.  France, 
(e) Osiand. ibid. p. 94.  Flanders 
(f) Chitr●eus in chron p. 71  Swe●eland 
(g) Fulk. answer to the declam of P. ●rarines.  Denmark 
(h) Dang. posit. l ●. c. ●. 4● &. seq.  and Scotland, & you shall find that the Gospel went not so fast up, but Kings and their authority went as fast down. What Bullenger writeth of Anabaptist●, was the true course of our Reformers. 
(i) Survey of the disc. p. 101.  They began with Bishops, pulling them from their seats; they ended with Kings casting them from their Thrones. Books have been written of this argument 
(k) Dang. po●it. Survey and others by D. Bancroft.  by no Papists, that show their practices and doctrines to be in the highest degree injurious to Kings.  

(l) Principes sunt omnium quos terra ●ustinet s●ultis●imi & deterrimi nebulones. Tun. 2. Ger. ●en. de mag saecul. fol. 200.  Luther's invectives I omit, not to pollute your ears. Calvin is more modest, yet so bold with Kings, as to write, that when they resist the Gospel 
(m) Cal. in Dan. cap. 6. v. 22.  they are not to be obeyed, but rather we ought to s●it it in their faces. This is nothing to that which Hottoman, Beza, Goodman, Knox, Vrsinus, Buchanan (to forbear the naming of others innumerable) have written, whereby they make Majesty subject to the people's pleasure, no more sure of his state, than weathercocks that must turn● with the wind. 
Vt sumat, ut ponat secures  
Arbitrio popularis aurae.  What think you of these their propositions following? 
(n) Knox to Engl. & Scotl. fol. 78.  If Princes be tyrants against God and his Truth, their subjects are freed from their oath o● Allegiance. 
(o) Buchan. de i●●e Reg. p. 61.  The people are greate● then the King, & of greater authority 
(p) ibid. p. 58.  The people have the same power o●uer the King, that the King hath over any one person. 
(q) ibid. p. 13.  The people have right to bestow the Crown at their pleasure. 
(r) ibid. p. 12.  As the patient may choose the physician he like●● best, & reject him at his pleasure: so the people in whose free choice at the beginning it was to be under kings or no, may, when they be weary of their bad government, cast him from his 
(s) Buchan apud Black. Apol. pro Reg. pag. ●1.  Office into prison, into irons, put him to death, and set whom they please to govern in his place.  

(t) The book of obedience written in Geneva by fugitives in Queen mary's days p. 16.  King's have their authority from the people, and the people may take it away again, as men may revoke their letters of Attorney. 
(u) ibid. p. 319 159.  If kings without fear transgress God's Laws, they ought no more to be taken as magistrates, but be examined, accused, condemned, and punished as private transgressors. 
(x) Goodman ●. 180.184.185.  When magistrates do not their duties, God giveth the sword into the people● hand: from ●e which no person, King, Queen 〈◊〉 Emperor is exempt; being Idolater 〈◊〉 must dye the death. These and the ●●ke positions have been invented by ●●e zealous professors of our Religion. ●he same or worse were renewed and ●ttered by the fervorous reformers that ●roue for discipline in Queen Eliz. ●ayes, that (as a worthy prelate writes) 
(y) Bancroft. Dang. po●it. p. 65. See this proved l. 2. c. 4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.  All the Popi●● traitors that hitherto have written, and all the Genevian & Scottish Reformers come not near ●hem for malicious and spiteful taunts, ●or railing and bitter terms, for disdainful and contemptuous speeches, ●gainst Prince, Bishops, Counsellors & ●ll other that stand in their way. Their secret practices to set up, by some mean ●r other, sweet or violent, the said discipline, have never been interrupted ●r remitted, as he doth 
(z) 
Dang. po●it. ibid. l. 3. c. ●. & seq.  
Danger. l. 4. c. 6.7.8.9.10.  
Ibid. c. 11.   particularly relate, beginning at the year 1560. ●o the year 1591. when was practised ●hat most blasphemous and barbarous ●reason, of their counterfeit jesus-christ Hacket, and his two Prophets ●f mercy and vengeance, who would ●aue planted the discipline, by depriving the Queen, and murdering th● nobles that stood against it, of whic● the chiefest Pretendents in that refor●mation had notice, 
ibid. c. 13.  at lost in confu●● and in general, as the said Archbishop affirmeth, and did secretly connive thereunto: favouring no doubt in ha●● a popular state where Church-doctrine and discipline is received & rejected by voices. 
Igneae naturae concionato●●s ●asil. Dor. pag. 41.  In which government these fiery gospellers, as hi● Majesty calleth them, being commonly men of sharp wits, and ready tongues, high minded, and of working spirits might bear great sway, & every one rule as King and Pope in his parish.  
Since that time, these men have been in show both for doctrine & practise more moderate, specially ●ince his Majesty's happy reign, and that some of them have been advanced to dignities. Now they are become the forwardest in show ●or defence of Allegiance: they speak most against the Papists that hold Kings to be deposable in some cases: They extol Royal authority above the skies. I can i● Charity believe that some of them mean as they profess: yet wisdom gives leave to fear reconciled emenies. Poison no where lurketh more securely then in honey. Their present doctrine carrieth outwardly a show of friendship to Kings, but ●o will ●ooke into the ground, shall find it dangerous to them, and more pernicious than the former of Calvin, Goodman, Beza, Knox Buchanan, and others ●heir predecessors and Masters. The ●umme of this their doctrine is contained in the Treatise entitled God & ●he King. 
Dial. p. 31. 32.33.88.  The Author whereof had ●o reason to term himself Theodi●act, that is, Taught of God, seeing he speaks diverse things that the spirit of God could not suggest unto him. He undertaketh the proof of four propositions. The first is, That Kings have authority immediately & only from God, the Church and people not being any thing in the ●uist thereof. This is the fundamental ●●one, whereon is built the second: ●hat Kings have no superior on earth to chastise and punish them. The third is. That ●either Tyranny, nor Heresy, nor Apostasy can release subjects of their Obedience. The fourth: That Kings may neither be deposed nor resisted (but by tears and prayers) though they should be so tyrannous & profane, as to endeavour to oppress the whole Church and Commonwealth at once, and utterly to extinguish the light of Christian Religion.  Philanax. 
These speeches may be disgustful to Subjects, and sound uncouthly in their ●ares: but doctrine that doth so magnify Kings, I see not how it may be thought pernicious to them.  Aristobulus. 
King's are not to regard so much how great and glorious, as how grounded be the titles that are bestowed on them: seeing incredible praises given to men, do oftentimes abate the credit of their deserved commendation. Some gospellers (as a judicious Protestant complains) attributing to the holy Scripture more than it can have, 
Hooker. Eccl. polit. l. 2. p. 129.  the incredibility of that hath caused even those things which in deed it hath most abundantly, to be the less reverently esteemed. The same we may ●are will happen to the authority of Kings. And the danger of such flattering speculations as this Dialogist reaches, is so much the greater to the Sovereign, whilst they extol him above measure to the state of absolute Lord & God upon earth, as it is hateful ●o the subject to see himself abased to servile & abhorred captivity, & put to ● more miserable condition, than the ●ondage of slaves. For slaves (to speak nothing of humane laws that have appointed limits to their miseries) ●aue some rights and liberties by the ●aw of nature inviolable, which (if ●hey be able) they may defend by force ●gainst even their own Masters that shall violently and unjustly invade ●hem● Such liberty they have to marry ●nd propagate humane kind, to enjoy ●ife so long as they have done nothing worthy of death, but principally ●o worship God their maker and supreme Lord. But this new doctrine of Princely absolute Sovereignty set ●owne in the Treatise mentioned, ●akes the Commonwealth so miserable, and the people such bondmen to their Prince, that they may not defen●● their national freedoms how just & necessary soever, nor the liberties an● rights that nature hath bequea●●e● even upon slaves. But that if th● Prince wanton in cruelty, should kee● men by force from marrying, so to bring the Commonwealth to utter desolation in one age: ●r if not having pati●ence to attend that lingering consump●tion of the state, he should daily sen● men by multitudes like herds of sheep or oxen to the slaughter; or if (out o● a desire his subjects may perish eternally) he should seek utterly to extinguish the doctrine of salvation within his Realms: In these cases (I say) o● the like, of extremest necessity and most hostile invasion, according to th● doctrine of this Dialogist, they may not lift up so much as their finger against his attempts, nor join with any power upon earth, that would relieve them.  Philanax. 
I see plainly that this doctrine is very odious in itself: and you set it forth to the uttermost.  Aristobulus. 
I say no more than his own wor●es import, nor have described tyranny ●ore truly than he hath done in his Dialogue. And I know so well there is ●o cause to fear the practice of this doctrine by his gracious Majesty, that I would not have said thus much, but to ●hew how odiously enemy's of Royalty may, and will exagitate this Conclu●ion, when such discourses shallbe for ●he advantage of popularity. Now ●hey write, and cause Treatises to be published by authority, which when ●ime shall serve, they may use to make ●is Majesty hateful. By the like stratagem the Puritans of Scotland overthrew his Majesties' Mother. 
Camden. Eliz. p. 111.  When ●hey had barbarously slain the King ●er husband, they importunely urged ●e● (alleging it was necessary for the maintenance of her state and life) to marry with the Earl of Bothwell, concealing from her that he had been thief actor in the murder. The marriage was no sooner concluded, but ●hey diuulged the hatefullnes therof● thence seeking to persuade the world she had been consenting to her husband's death. And so what with defa●matory libels abroad, what wit● their turbulent declamations at hom● they made her odious, they took from her the Crown● they tossed her from mi●sery to misery, till finally they brought h●r to lay her head on the block to b● cut off by the common Executioner. ● hope his Majesty's happy reign shal● never see commotion in this state: ye● if any such tumult happen (and human things are uncertain) I do not fear to be found a false Prophet in saying, tha● this doctrine will be bitterly exclaime● against, and this Treatise I speak of● produced to witness what desperate allegiance Princes exact: and urged no● only against his Majesty, but as a caus● sufficient to banish Kings out of th● Land. The late Lord of Canterbury complains, that in his days, 
●ancrofe ●uruey of ●ol. dis. c. 2.5.7  cantoning of Kingdoms was in many men's mouths: tha● men did talk what a notable thing it is to liu● in Venice● where every gentleman liveth wit● as great liberty, as the Duke himself. Many who now have Kings and their majesties most frequent in their mouth, still ●arbor we may fear, the same affection in their hearts to be freed from them. Yea some Puritans of the last Parliament in their discontented meetings, were bold to propose the changing of the government of the Realm ●rom Monarchy into Democracy. Nor may such men● that have been once tainted with this Con●storiall affection, be therefore trusted, because they are content to take upon them the dignity of Bishops, wherein they may dissemble by their own doctrine, retaining it not as a sacred but as a temporal office from the Prince, and vs● it to set up the discipline: These covert enemies of Kings want not their Confederates in France whose minds and desires Turquet a famous French Protestant expresseth in his book written in commendation of Democracy above Monarchy; nor in Holland to which ●his French Democratist Turquet dedicated his aforesaid book, as to men already made blessed by this kind of government, and fittest instruments ●o bring the same into the rest of reformed Countries. Of these enemy's o● Monarchy so combined together, so neighbouring upon us, so subtle as they lie hidden under roche●s, & corner caps in the shape of Bishops and their adherents, we have more need to take heed then of the Pope, who is further off, his cause not popular, his party not like to prevail by force & his followers rather ready to dye, than they will dissemble their Religion, as these others do.  Philanax. 
I perceive by your discourse that more treachery against Kings may be couched in these plausible discourses than I could ever have imagined. The Troyans' were not wise that trusted the gifts of the Grecians, nor can I think it policy to rest secure of the books or writings which those that once were Puritan publish to flatter the state or the Prince, pretending affection to sovereignty which their Religion doth so mightily and so intrinsically oppugn. I fear that as within the Trojan horse armed enemies lurked, so under this new devised allegiance traitors lie hidden: who when they ●●e their time will show themselves like ●o many firebrands, to incense the people against Kings, that challenge ●uch infinite and hateful authority.  Aristobulus. 
You fear not without cause, if you consider that by this device the authors ●herof who would ●ule themselves a●one, do nothing but practise the Ma●hiauilian means to attain thereunto.. 
* Divide & r●g●a.  They seek to separate the King from ●hose, whose love may stand him in most steed. The four propositions be●ore set down make him enter into odious competency with four Adversaries. The first breeds him a quarrel with the Common wealth, from whom he will not have his power derived. The second puts him into con●ention with the Church, to whose direction and censures he will not have ●is Crown subordinate. The third ●rings him into hatred of mankind, by challenging an irresistible power to tyrannise upon man at his pleasure. The forth contains an open strife with God for precedence, requiring of th● Common wealth, in case they canno● enjoy both, that they be content t● want rather God then their King. An● these quarrels are moved upon weak● titles and claims, grounded on doctrines either uncertain or apparently false, and so odious as were the● true, yet were it not fit to discuss● them in vulgar Treatises.  Philanax. 
I see these doctrines are odious, an● I nothing doubt but they are likewise ungrounded: yet I desire that you wi● severally show both these things in every one of the four propositions, tha● I may be better instructed to discover the treacherous entendments of these counterfeit friends of Majesty.  Aristobulus. 
I will do my endeavour to satisfy your request. First, I will examine the four aforesaid Propositions, which done I mean to speak a word concerning the Oath, which Theodidact buildeth upon them, as upon four ●●llers. And to begin with the first, ●●at the king hath power from God only, independently of the Common wealth, because this is the ground of all his discourse, and of the other three I will ●ore fully show the unsoundness thereof, that the world may see, that Theodi●●ct, as either a most unkillfull Architect that lays so weak a principle of ●he building he p●e●eds to raise to the sky; or a subtle Archtraitor purposely placing the Sovereignty of Kings, which he desires may fall upon ● most ruinous foundation.  
Three be the ways, by the which ●en come to be Kings: popular election: lawful conquest; Gods personal appointment sp●cially revealed. I say specially revealed, for I nothing doubt ●ut Kings by the two other titles be made by God's special providence. The title of election depends on men's ●artes. The title of Conquest upon battles, which are two things most ●ncertaine, and their success only in God's hand, who bestoweth popular ●auour and victory in war on whom ●e will. For this re●son it is said that, King's reign by him; 
Proverb. 8.  that he placeth them in their throne; 
job 36.  ruleth in the Kingdom of men; 
Daniel 4.  giveth it to whom soever he please, not that h● maketh monarchs without secondary causes; but because these secondary causes work not, but by the special direction of his hand● Wherefore the titles of Election and Conquest be spe●cially from God, though not only & immediately from him, as is the third claim, when God by special revelation declares his will to have some certain person King, as he did Saul and David,  Philanax. 
You omit Succession, which is a claim to the Crown.  Aristobulus. 
Succession in blood is not a prim● and original title, but a means to derive to posterity these three fornamed claims from Ancestors that first enjoyed them; none of which titles do sufficiently institute a person King● without the consent of commonwealth. When a King is made by ele●●ion the case is clear; but the Conqueror seems to come to the crown ●gainst the Commonwealths will. In ●eed the right of Conqueror he may ●aue, will they nile they; yet Royal authority over them he cannot have without their grant. The right of lawful Conquest binds the state conquered to make the conqueror their King upon just conditions which he ●ay prescribe heavy or hard according ●o the quantity of their offence. If ●hey refuse to yield, he hath the right ●f the sword to force them, not the ●ight of Prince to govern them, till ●hey consent. This consent being ●ielded, then there begins a new Society and Commonwealth compacted ●f conqueror's and the people conquered, and the Prince of the conquering side becomes King to govern ●hem both according to the laws and ●onditions agreed upon: which condi●●ons if he neglect, he is no less sub●●ct and corrigible by the Commonwealth, than Kings made by election.  
When God personally appoints any one to be King, as he did Saul, & David, neither then have Kings pow●er immediately, and only from God God is said to have made Saul, an● David Kings, because he eternally decreed they should be Kings, in du● time revealed this his will, gave com●maundment to his people, and effectu●ally stirred up t●●ir hearts to mak● them Kings. These are remote title● and a far of: but it can never be proved that in making Saul and Daui● Kings, the people's grant did no● concur with Gods, yea the Scripture signifies that it did, saying, 
1. Reg. 11.25  all the people went to Galgala and made Saul King before th● Lord. The elders of judath and Israel anointed David King over them. 
2. Reg. 5.   Philanax. 
Some say, 
Dial. p. 44  the people made Saul an● David Kings, not by giving them Kingly power this was from God only; but by manifestin● that they were Kings, by approving them 〈◊〉 Kings made by God, by putting them into th● possession of their Kingdoms to exercise rega● authority.  Aristobulus. 
I know that Theodidact answereth 〈◊〉 this sort, but proof of his sayings 〈◊〉 bringeth none. Doth he think the ●●llar of Sovereignty stands firm inhigh upon his bare word? What if one ●●y, that the people did likewise con●●r with God to make them Kings, ●●n Theodidact think you clearly con●●te him? Verily this concourse of God ●●d people to make a King is insinuated in Deuteronomy, 
Deut. 17.  Thou shalt make him ●ing whom thy Lord God hath chosen for thee, ●●gnifying that God designed the per●●n, but the people made him King 〈◊〉 bestowing authority on him. And ●●ing God useth not to do things on●● by himself when secondary agents 〈◊〉 present sufficient to work them; ●●y may we not think that God ha●●ng designed the persons of Saul and ●●uid, left the making them Kings to ●●e people of the jews, who had no ●●●se power than other free Common●●althes to constitute for themselves governors and Kings?  
here you may see in what danger to fall, regal supremacy is, which Th●●odidact buildeth upon this discourse Saul and David had power only an● immediately from God, therefore th● same is to be believed of other Kings The antecedent is uncertain, and ca● never be proved, as hath been said but much more silly is the consequen●● which extendeth Gods special fervours showed to his people in th● choice of their Kings, to the generali●● of Kings and Nations. God fed h●● people in the des●rt with bread ma●● by the hands of Angels; may we thē●● infer that men have no bread b●● cometh immediately from heaven?  
But (to omit these Kings that wer● by God's express commission personally designed) that other Kings have pow●● only from God, is a paradox which scar● any Christian Divine holds. C●●tholicks, Puritans, foreign Prot●●stants, even our English Conform●●tants, derive regal authority from th● Commonwealth. Let the truth b● tried by the testimony of two. Can ●ame any graver Authors in o●● Church than Doctor Bilson late Bishop ●f Winchester & M. Hooker? The first in ●is Treatise of Christian Subjection ●ebateth this question, 
The true difference etc. p. 421.  and defineth ●hat Kings are not only creatures of ●he Commonwealth, but also in some ●ases, may be deposed by the supreme ●urisdiction thereof. And that Chilperick was justly deposed by his Nobles, and pippin chosen King in his place. M. Hooker ●ath these words. 
l. 1. Eccles. polit. p. 72.  all public regiment 〈◊〉 what kind soever seemeth evidently to have ●●sen from deliberate advice, and consultation, ●nd composition between men ordaining the ●●me, and yielding themselves subject thereunto, without which consent there were no reason ●a● one man should take upon him to be Lord or ●udge over others. And again: 
Ibid.  To Fathers ●●aith he) within their private ●amilies na●●re hath given supreme power: howbeit over ● whole grande multitude, having no such dependency upon any one, and consisting of many ●●milies, impossible it is that any one should have complete and full power, without consent of ●●n. He granteth indeed that some ●ings and lawmakers as Moses, Saul, ●●uid were authorised by God, and by ●●●resse commission immediately and personally ●●aued ●rom him, ou● of this case (saith he) the power of government and making laws 〈◊〉 command whole politic societies of men, be●longeth so properly unto the same entire socie●ties, that for any Prince or Potentate upon ear●● of what kind● soever, to exercise the same 〈◊〉 himself, not by authority derived at the fir●● from their consent upon whose persons they im●pose laws, it is no better than mere tyranny● Thus he writeth, and thus our own Authors overthrow Theodidacts new pillar of Sovereignty, proclaiming those Princes plain tyrants that claymy power derived from God and nature and not originally from the grau●● and consent of their subjects. For whic● their opinions reasons may be brought very urgent. The practice of all Cou●●tryes that have transferred the Crown● from family to family have restrayne● and enlarged the bounds thereof b● politic laws. What reason, if we r●●spect only the law of God and nature why Spain should be governed by a M●●narch, rather than Venice? That i● England women may succeed to th● Crown, from which they are exclude● in France? That in Scotland the Crown● descendeth to the nearest in blaud, a●● 〈◊〉 Poland the King is made by the free ●●oice of States? 
Victor. relect. 3. d● pot●st. civili. Mol. d● iure & instit. tom. 1● trac. 2. d. 120.  What is the reason ●●at by the law of nations the whole Commonwealth may be punished & ●rought into bondage for the sin's ●f their Prince? Why should the Prince's ●●ymes be imputed to them, if it were 〈◊〉 their choice, neither at the first to ●aue him, nor afterward to want him? without question ●he general voice ●f human kind is, that Common●ealthes have power to make Princes, ●nd upon just reason unmake them: ●nd therefore they are accountable to ●●her neighbouring States, if they ad●it one to the Crown with their injury, or finding him incorrigible do ●ot remove him. Whence ariseth that ●●onge inclination in subjects to fight ●●r their Prince, to wit from love, to ●●stify their own doings & the States ●●blick judgement of their Prince's worthiness.  Philanax. 
It cannot be well denied but the consent of the Commonwealth either ●●e or enforced by Conquest, concur●eth to the making of the Prince, but Theodidact saith, that is, not the original and mediate fountain o● this authority Heat, moisture, cold, and our temper arising from them, are preparations whereby our bodies are made fit receptacles for the soul, but the Creator o● our soul is God: so Princes have their claims and titles by election or conquest, but the prime Author of their power is God, & as they receive their power only from God, s● for the good or evil administration thereof they are accountable only to God.  Aristobulus. 
This discourse of Theodidact groundeth Royal authority upon another uncertainty, which Divines debate i● their schools: whether royal powe● be produced by the Commonwealth when Kings are made, or being create● by God together with mankind fro● the beginning, is communicated b● the Commonwealth to their King● Some say, 
Molin● to. 1. de iure tract. 2. disp. 26. Driedo de libert. l. 1. c. 15.  that the Commonwealth making Kings, produceth a new kin● of power which before was not whence they infer that the Commonwealth hath a more eminent authority ●hen the King, as being able to give ●eing to his power: others, whom ● rather approve, teach that regal authority was created immediately of God together with man's nature, 
Victor? relect. de potest. civili. n. 8. & Covarr. de practicis quaest. c. 1. n. 6.  and is formally in every absolute and free state: ●hich state when they choose for thē●●lues a King, doth not produce a new ●ind of power which was not before, ●ut the royal Sovereignty which God ●reated and bestowed upon them, they transfer from themselves to the per●●n elected, by which conjunction of ●●e Commonwealths power, with ●●s person, he is created King. In the ●●ke manner parents produce children, ●●t by producing the soul which is 〈◊〉 God only, but by conjoyving the ●ule created of God to the body prepared and designed by generation ●●erunto. True then is the saying of 〈◊〉 Paul: Omnis potestas à Deo est: All power is 〈◊〉 God, and only immediately from God: 
Rom. 13.2.  〈◊〉 joined with particular persons, 〈◊〉 without the mediation of man. ●ence, saith Tertullian, cited by this treatiser, Kings have their power whence ●●r spirit, 
Pag. 46.  both created by God only, but as the spirit is not infused into th● body without the concourse of Pa●rents, so neither is Royal powe● united with this or that person, bu● by the consent of their Country. Yo● see that even in this opinion King's ar● no less beholding to the Commonwealth for their authority, than Chil●dren to their Parents for their souls, 〈◊〉 whose being parents concur, only designing the matter, and making th● same a fit receptacle for their soule● Vain then is Theodidacts subtil●y 〈◊〉 make Kings beholding to God only and no less vain is his speculation 〈◊〉 prove their exemption from men. Kin● (saith he) as they receive their power ●ro● God only, so ●or the good or evil administration th●●reof, they are accountable only to God. Who se● not the weakness of this inference, thou●● the antecedent were true? The soul 〈◊〉 men is of God only, yet for words 〈◊〉 deeds proceeding from the same, m●● are accountable to mor●al Superiors The power of Father over his child●●● the power of husband over his w●●● is of God only; yet for the administr●●tion thereof they may be called to a●●●unt by the Commonwealth, yea ●●s authority which God hath given ●●em, when they tyrannise over wife ●●d children, the Commonwealth ●ay restrain, or utterly take from ●●em. To conclude, and sum up ●is whole discourse in few words. ●hat Saul or David, or any King had ●wer only from God, is at the least 〈◊〉 uncertainty, thence to infer the ●●●e of all Kings is a mere vanity That 〈◊〉 Kings have power from God only, ●●th no probability. Grant all: yet sovereignty cannot out of these principles be concluded, seeing some ●wer only from God may be subordinate to superiors on earth. Theodida●●● ● did he not desire that royal Sovereignty should fall, would he (think 〈◊〉) strive so earnestly to have the 〈◊〉 builded on this heap of sand.  Philanax. 
Doth not this doctrine, that ●●nces are made by the consent of the ●●●monwealth, impair the Maie●●●f Kings, and the reverence and ●●●ration due thereunto?  A●istobulus. 
No: but rather increase the sam● more than the contrary conceit. Fo● if men be made to the image and likeness of God, sons of God, and God on earth, principally in respect of th● sovereignty they have to rule themsel●ues and other Creatures, when this di●uine Majesty of nature is wholly trans●ferred from the Communality to on● person; how sacred & venerable ma● he be thought, as in the beginning o● the world, the waters that were vn●der the Heavens gathering into on● place, made this vast ocean we see; s● the heavenly gift of Sovereignty d●●ffused in every free and absolute state when they by common consent em●●tying & exhausting themselves, deprive the same to one person, becomes a fountain or rather a may● sea of Majesty and power; which 〈◊〉 humane in regard of the person 〈◊〉 which it is, & the manner it com● unto him: but divine, if we look 〈◊〉 the spring whence it originally a●● immediately floweth. To which pu●●●ose the Poet singeth not amiss 
— Terrae Dominos, pelagique futuros  
●●menso decuit rer●m de Principe nasci.   Philanax. 
I am satisfied, & see plainly that his immediate receiving power from God only, is but an empty title without substance, which his Majesty will ●ot regard, being ●●ll of true glory. alexander was not wise in his vain ambition to be thought jupiters' son, ●hereby he lost their hearts that had ●ost helped him to the Monarchy of ●he earth.  Aristobulus. 
The conceit is not only idle & empty, but also may prejudice Kings. As Hercules choked the giant by hol●ing him aloft in the air, whom by throwing against the ground he could ●ot overcome: so the enemies of Kings whom by their doctrine, that depressed them under the feet of common people, they could not make way ●ith flattering subjects, they lift to ●he skies that they may more dangerously fall. For such conceits by raising Kings beyond measure above t●● heads of their subjects, remove the● much further from their hearts, whic● are (whatsoever flatterers say) the immediate fountain of their greatness, & th● only seat of security they may tru● unto. Such monarchs as thought themselves sure, being feared, though they were also ha●●d, have left behind them lamentable documents, tha● they were deceived: and that the sailing of a prudent historian is most tru● Nullum stabile regnum nis● benevolentia muni●tum, 
AEmilius Probus in Dione.  No King can long reign who i● not walled in and guarded about wit● the Love of his subjects. Man's lou● with ease descends to persons vnde● him either by natural descent whic● is the cause they love so dear thei● Children, or by voluntary subjection which is the reason we love them tha● do freely devote themselves to ou● service. Neither did God in the trea●sure of his infinite wisdom find any better means to win man's a●ffection then to descend both to re●cea●e life and being from man, glory●●●g to be styled the son of man, and afterwards to live as an humble servant 〈◊〉 man, performing the greatest service of Charity, to dye for him. It ●●nnot be thought how lovely to man majesty is, that professeth to come of ●●s stock, and to be wholly consecrated to his love: you may by this guess ●ow pernicious this new doctrine is, ●●at drieth up these two fountains, 〈◊〉 people's affection towards their ●rince, by making him scorn to be ●●ought (though S. Peter so terms ●●m) the creature of man, much less ●●eir servant, rather than absolute ●●ord that may dispose of their lives & ●●uings at this will.  
Contrary to this was the judgement ●f all the worthiest and best Roman emperor's that reigned happily and ●●ed quietly in their beds. They did ●ost willingly acknowledge the Empire to be the gift of the people and ●enate: they were much more careful ●f their Subjects good, then of their twne, yea they seemed not to regard ●easons against their persons that ●ere not joined with other public detriment. Amongst the●e, Traian i● eminent, who being chosen Emperou● strait in the hands of the Consul● swore allegiance & fealty to the com●monwealth: 

Plinius in panegir.  
Trai ●n. Dio in Traiano.   and when he made th● Praetor to govern in his name according to the ceremony, delivering the naked sword, said to him: Use this sword for me if I govern justly, i● otherwise use it against me. By wh●ch resignation both of state and life, into the commonwealth hands, he more secured them both, than any enforced Oath, that he held the Crown from God only, could have done.  Philanax. 
You have showed the first proposition of Theodidact to be neither a solid ground of sovereignty, nor a doctrine apt to nourish in subjects minds, affection to their Kings. I desire you would pass to the examination of the second: that Kings have no Superior that may call him to account, or punish him, but God alone.  Aristobulus. 
here Theodidact goeth forward in building the sovereignty of Kings ●ither upon manifest falsehood, or tottering uncertainties. That the King ●ath no superior, but God alone, that ●ay punish him, all learned men generally, Papists, Puritans, Protestant's ●eny.  Philanax. 
I do much wonder that you say Protestants ●each, th●t the King may ●e sentenced and punished by any man ●pon earth. I think you mean Puritans, not our Protestant's that pro●esse to follow the Religion established ●y Parliament.  Aristobulus. 
I mean Protestants that are enemy's of Puritan, and conformable to ●he state: and to increase your wondering I add, that howsoever the word Supreme Governor, and Head of the Church go currant in England, yet in ●ense our Divines give our King no greater authority in causes Ecclesiastical than Papists do. I desire not to be believed unless I make what I have ●ayd, evident by the testimonies of them, that have lately written abo●● this argument.  
First concerning the ver● title, they say, the King hath no any spiritual Ecclesiastical power a● a●l, 

Confut. p. 3. & 36.  
Respons. pro Tortura  
Torti. p. 239.  
Tompson in elench. refute p. 51.   his power (saith doctor Morton, no● Bishop of Chester) is but corporal, and ca● go no ●urther than the body. He hath (saith M. Burhill) no jurisdiction in the Church ey●ther ●or the inward o● outward Court: his powe● is mere temporal and laical, nor in it sel● spiritual, though the matter and object there●● be spiritual: such power, and no greater, saith M. Richard Tomson, than jews, Infidel's and Turks have over the Christian Church within their dominions.  
Secondly concerning Controversies of faith, the Dean of Lichfiel● doctor Tooker disclaimeth as an im●pudent slander, that the Church o● England holds, 
Duel. contra Becan. p. 3.  the King to be their prima● or head, or judge of Controversies about fait● and Religion. To the Apostles Christ gave powe● to gather Counsels, and to define solemnly th● Churches doubts. 
Concord. Angl. p. 43.  The sentence of Council (saith M. Richard Harris) hath without th● King the force of an ecclesiastical law: 
Ibid.  the King adds thereunto corporal penalty. M. Morton ●●yth, that Imperial and Kingly authority in spiritual causes, reacheth no further, then as it belongeth to outward preservation, not to the personal administration of them, neither doth ●●e King challenge, nor subjects condescend unto ●ore. 
Barlow in his answer to a nameless Catholic p● 171.  But most clearly M. Barlow late bishop of Lincoln●. The King (saith he) in controversies about faith, hath not iu●icium definitium, sentence definitive, to ●●scerne what is sound in ●●●inity: but when the church hath determined matters of faith, he ●ath iudicium executiwm, sentence executive, to command the professing thereof within his Kingdoms.  
And is not this the very doctrine ●f Papists, 
Survey of the holy Discipl. p. 254.  and that doctrine which ●●rmerly our Archbishop Bancro●t re●ected with great scorn, as disgraceful to Kings, making them, but Car●●fices Ecclesiae, the executioners of the Churches will and pleasure? 
Tortura Torti. p. 151.   
Thirdly concerning the offices of ●his power, they teach, 

Tooker Duel. p. 15.  
Tomson ●lench. p. 83.   the King hath no ●ower to use any censure, or to cast any out of ●he Church by sentence, but his office is to punish ●hem with corporal chastisement, on whom Bishops have laid their censures. The King doth ●ot make or unmake Bishops, they are made by the Bishops of the Kingdone, as by them they a●● disposed and unmade. 
Took●r Duel. p. ●6  The King hath right t● name and present persons to benefices, as other lay men of lower condition have, but benefices ei●ther with cure or without cure, great or little, he neither doth, nor ever did bestow, much less the ecclesiastical dignities, as the Bishoprics & Archbishoprics of his Kingdom. 
Answer to a nameless. p. 172.   
Fourthly, concerning the King's sudordination to Bishops, Doctor Barlow highly commendeth the saying of Ambrose: 
Duel. pag. 311.  Bishops (in matters concerning faith) are to judge of Emperors, not Emperors of Bishops. 
Quod Ambrosio licuit in Theodosium, idem & aliis in Regem simili de causa liceat. Burhill. ibid. 139.  The Dean of Lich●eild saith, that, the King is, and with Valentinian Emperor doth acknowledge himself the son and pupil of the Church, and the scholar of the Bishops. What more do papists require? Can he then iudg & teach his Fathers, judges and Masters in those things wherein he is their son, pupil, and scholar? Finally M. Burhill saith, 
Theodor. l. 9 Histor. c. 30. Ruffin. l. 12. c. 18. Niceph. l. 12. c. 41.  that the King supreme governor of the Church may by his Bishops be cast out of the Church, What Ambrose did lawfully to Theodosius, our Bishops may do lawfully to the King ●or the like offence. And what did Ambrose to Theodosius? He cast him by sentence out of the Church: he stood ready to keep him out by force, and called him Tyrant ●o his face: he forced him to e●act a temporal law concerning the execution of the sentence in matter of ●ife and death: he commanded him out of the choir or the place of Priests, sent him into the body of the Church to pray with laymen. And may the Bishop of Canterb●●y lay the same punishments on his Majesty? 
Torture. Tort. p● 15● Survey of holy Disc. p. 254.  yea (saith the Bishop of Ely) perchance the Pope may excommunicate the King, & deprive him of the common goods of the Church.  
Do you see to how many censures, 
Reges n● nisi à Papa excommunicantur & censuris ligantur. Emman. Saa, verb. Excomm. 15. Enriquez l. 1●. de ex●om. c. 14. Sayr. in Thesau. l. 1. c. 9 n. 7  Protestants make the King subject? Truly I see not how any Religion doth or can make Kings more absolute, and subject to fewer Superiors, than Papists do, The Puritan will have them subject to the Pastor of every parish that hath a Consistory, as our Bishop Bancro●t saith They banish one Pope and admit a thousand. The Protestant makes them obnoxius to the censure of Bishops without any restraint, whereas the Romanists out of respect to the Majesty of Kings, reserve the power of censuring them ●o the supreme Pastor.  
But to return to Theodidact: you se● he keepeth his custom to ground al●legiance due to Kings, upon do●ctrines either questionable, or 〈◊〉 denied of all sides; his second propo●sition, that the King is free from al● punishment that man may inflict, bein● rather more uncertain, than hi● first, that Kings h●●e their power only fro● God.  Philanax. 
It seemeth by your discourse, tha● Theodidact makes Kings more absolu●●● than other Protestants do, & teacheth against them, that the King may no● be excommunicated, or cast out of th● Church. For he saith, that the King i● free from all punishment that man can inflict & excommunication without doubt is a great punishment: Ministers without question, are men.  Aristobulus. 
It is hard to say, what Theodida●● holds: this his ground of Soueraignty● The King hath no superior but God alone, i● ●lippery and uncertain, that he dares not stand upon it himself. For elsewhere contradicting this principle, he ●aith in plain terms, that, 
Pag. 58.  Kings that ●aue given their names unto Christ are sheep of ●is fold, 
Pag. 56.  & so are to obey their spiritual pastors ●auing oversight over them: that they are to be obedient unto their spiritual Pastors, as Ambassadors from Christ: 
Pag. 57  th●t● Kings and Bishops ●e mutually Pastors, and Superiors one to the ●ther. If Bishops be overseers, Pastors, Superiors to the King, how is it true, ●hat the King hath no superior but God alone? If nothing be more excellent, nothing more sublime than a Bishop, as our Theodidact, 
De dignity sacer. c. 3.  approving S. Ambrose his ●aying, teacheth, ●o wit in spiritual ●nd Ecclesiastical causes, which to ad●minister they are sent; 
Pag. 60.  how can a King ●e more excellent than a Bishop in ●hose causes? Is it possible that the same man should be superior and subject to ●he same persons in respect of the same Court? I confess I cannot understand this divinity, that subjects may iudg ●heir Superiors, even in those causes, wherein they are subordinate to them. That, the King supreme Governor of the Church, may be sententially summoned, arrai●gned, and cast out of the Church by a Bishop ● If sovereign Princes may be iudge● by their subjects in those causes wherein they are supreme and independent what doth their supremacy avail then If supreme governors of the Church may be cast out of the Church, by thei● Bishops that ar● their spiritual subjects; what solid reason can Theodidac● assign why Sovereigns may not likewise be cast out of their Kingdom by their Barons and Peers, though they be their vassals?  Philanax. 
I could wish our Authors, concerning the King's supremacy, spoke mor● coherently, yet seeing this proposition the King hath no superior but Go● alone, doth so much extol the Soue●raignty of Kings, I can not be brought to forsake Theodidact herein, except b● the confutation of his reasons I perceive this pillar of Majesty to be uncertain, and unsound.  Aristobulus. 
Small reading and skill in Scripture is sufficient to show, that Theodidacts arguments against Papists be not so convincing as we may securely ground the authority of King's therapon. For either th●● make nothing to the purpose, or else prove what Papists do not deny, that the King is supreme in temporals.  
His mayn●●round and principle is, that in the old Testament Priests were not superior to Kings, but rather that Kings were their judges: Could he have assumed a doctrine more uncertain, or rather more false, then is this? 
l. 2. contra Apionem.  A doctrine against the learnedst of the jews. josephus saith, that to their Priests not to Kings was committed the custody of the Law, and the charge of greatest affairs: so that they were overseers of all, judges of controversies, and punisher of offenders. Philo 
* De legate. sua ad Caium. quanto Deus antestat homini, tanto pontificatus regno exce●lentior.  writeth that Priestly dignity is preferred before royal, by the jews, who judge Priesthood by so much the more excellent than Royalty, by how much God surpasseth man. With whom agree the Christian Fathers, namely S. Chrysostome, averring, 
Homily 4. super verb. Isa. vidi dominum.  that God woul● have Kings submit their heads to the hands of Priests, that men might understand that Priest's are more worthy Princes, and more venerable than are Kings. Yea the word of God seems ●o distinguish the office of high Priest, from the office of King, 
4. Reg. c. 22.  assigning to the high Priest the care of things that pertain to God, to the King the charge of temporal affairs. 
Deut. 17.12 Qui auten superbierit, nolens obedire imp●rio, morietur homo.  And who (conversant in the old Testament) knoweth not, that to the high Pri●●● was given the supreme and last power to decide all controversies about the law? Whosoever shallbe proud and refuse to obey the sentence of the Priest, let that man dye the death.  Philanax. 
These testimony of the Fathers and Scriptures seem very urgent: But hath not Theodidact made some answer to them?  Aristobulus. 
No: nor brought any proof of his opinion, besides the bare example of salomon, 
Dial. p. 48.  that deposed Abiathar the high Priest ●nd placed Sadocke in his roome ● But first be ●roues not that Solomon deposed Abia●har lawfully, that therein he exceeded ●ot the bounds of his authority. The deeds of Kings be not ever justifiable, ●or was Solomon such a Saint, that we may think all his actions praise worthy without further proof. Secondly he proveth not that Solomon deposed Abia●har by the ordinary power of King. Papists say, 
Sand. l. 2. v fib. Mon. c. 3.  Solomon did in that action proceed not as King, 
Stapleton. prin●. doct. l. 3. c 3.  but as Prophet. 
Bell. l. de conc. 20. Dial. p. 49.  Which answer Theodidact doth not confute, but misunderstand, as though they me●nt that Solomon was therefore a Prophet, because he fulfilled what God had foretold against the house of Heli, which he rejecteth with a jest, that so Herod might be termed a Prophet in murdering the Innocents', because therein he fulfilled, what God by jeremy had foretold. 
Act. 1. v. 14.  But the Papists be not so absurd as to say that whosoever fulfilleth a prophecy, is a Prophet, nor that judas in betraying his Master, and hanging himself was a Prophet, though therein he fulfilled prophecies. They say that God, to the end that what he had threatened against the house of Heli, might come t● pass, he gave to Solomon prophetical & extraordinary Commission to depos● Abi●thar high Priest of the stock of Hel● Salomon's royal authority not bein● sufficient for the lawful performance thereof. Which doctrine is so solid that Theodidact, not being able to overthrow it by argument, thought goo● to make it ridiculous by mistaking it● Finally though we grant that Salo●mon deposed Abiathar, and by Kingly authority; the most that may be thence in●erred is, that Solomon was suprem● in temporal affairs, and might pu●nish Priests in case of Treason. Whic● notwithstanding in things pertaining t● God, Princes might be subject to th● high-Priest, & for spiritual crimes ten●ding to the overthrow of Religion's might be deposed.  
And in my opinion it is want o● judgement in them that would b● thought friends to Kings, to stir th● stories of the old Testament, which, for one high Priest disposed by a King without clear approbation of the ●act, yieldeth two sovereign Princes deposed by the high Priest, and their deposition warranted by the holy Ghost. 
2. King. 11.  Did not jehoida high-Priest depose Athalia Queen, pronounce sentence of death upon her, and in ●er room make joas King? 
2. Chron. 26.  Did not Azarias high-Priest cast King Ozias out of the Temple? deprive him of government for his presumptuous usurping the Priestly office, to offer inc●n●e to the Lord? What needed Theodidact to provoke Papists to bring forth these examples for the Pope's authority two for one, and such as he to answer them is driven to very hard shift●? What he saith concerning Athalia, 
Dial. 53.  that she was not lawful Queen but an usurper, he neither proveth, nor is it very proba●ble. 
2● King. ●1. Inuasor fit legitimus Princeps, si successu temporis populus consentiat & admittat talem. Suarez. de leg. l. 3 c. 4.  She came blodily & unjustly to the Crown, but this doth not convince that she was not afterward righful Queen. They who themselves, or whose ancestors come to the Crown unjustly, be made Lawful Princs, when they are freely admitted by the state without debatable contradiction, though perchance some may survive, that in the sight of God hath better right of blood. And no doubt can be made, but Athalia was admitted with general consent for six years, when joas lay hidden, none standing in open competency against her: That this consent was not free but enforced, can neither be proved nor clearly confuted. So Theodidacts solution is grounded upon uncertanity.  
But his answer to the second instance about Ozias, 
Pag. 50 51.  that the high-Priest did not cast him out of the Temple by force, but caused him to depart by word and admonition only, is much more insufficient, and hardly can it agree with the text of Scripture, which saith that to hinder Ozias from burning incense, there entered into the Temple together with Azarias fourscore Priests, 
●. Chron. 26.27.  viri fortissimi, stout and valiant men, signifying they went with resolution to use force and to cast him out (saith S. Chrysostom ● not as King but as a fugitive and ungracious servant. They warned him to desist and to depart, 
Chry. hom. 5. de verb. Isa. vidi Dominun.  whose admonition when he contemned, God incontinently struck him with Leprosy. His Leprosy the Priests perceived shining in his forehead, before he felt it himself, and upon sight thereof began out of hand hastily to thrust him out: though, when he ●elt Gods miraculous chastisement upon him, he was as willing to go, as they to carry him away. So that in the beginning he was drawn, in the end lead out of the Temple. 
— Ducunt volentem fata nolentem trahunt.   Philanax. 
How might Papists cast him out by force, seeing Chrisostome cited by Theodidact saith, 
Dial. p. 51. Homil 4● de verb. I●a. vidi Dominun.  The office of a Priest is only to reprove, and only to admonish, not to move arme● not use bucklers, not to shake a lance, but only to argue, and freely to admonish.  Aristobulus. 
The saying of Chrysostome (which Theodidact doth so much magnify) is properly verified, 
Exod. 3●. 28.  not in the Leviticall Priests who were warriors as other Tribes, 
Cruentas refugit ultiones. Leo Ep. 91. & 23.9.8. Can. 1. & seq.  and were chosen to Priestly dignity, for their consecrating their hands to God in the blood of sinner's: But the saying is true of Christian Priesthood whereof they were figures, which abhorreth bloody proceedings. But this makes not against what hath been said, that Oziar was cast out by force, because the same Father alloweth that even Christian Priests, thrust wicked King's ou● of the Church with their hands, or keep them out forcibly by the interposition of their body. So did he resist Endoxia Empress, 
Vita Chrysost. per Simeon. Me●aph. to. 1. p 152. Paulin. in ●ius vita & Theodor. l. 8 c. 19  and S. Ambrose was ready to have used the like force against Theodosius: yea the same S. Chrysostome highly commendeth the famous Patriarch of Antioch and Martyr Babilas for keeping a bloody Emperor out of the Church, impacta in pectus dextera, giving him a thrust on the breast: whereby (saith this Father) he taught the world, 
Aduersus gentiles s●u ora●ione de ●. Babyla. tom. 5 pag. 888.  in what degree Priesthood excelleth Royalty: he taught Kings to keep their power within their ●ounds prescribed by God: he taught Priests in what sort they were to rule and use authority over Kings.  Philanax. 
I see it can hardly be denied but the Priests cast the King by force out of the Temple: 
Dialog. 51. 2. Reg. ●5.  but him (saith Theodidact) they did not deprive of his Kingly authority, which he held to his death: for he ●eigned 52. years: which ca●not be true, except the years of his leprosy be reckoned as part of his reign.  Aristobulus. 
To this objection of Theodidact S. Chrysostome his choose Patron, 
Homil. 4. deverb. Isa. vidi Dominum.  makes answer even in that very homily by him cited, saying that Ozias was deprived of Royal authority, 
Dialog. ●1. Non eiecerunt eū● civitate diadema illius regiamque dignitatem reveriti, sed consedit in thro' no ru●sum legen transgrediens.  yet he still retained the execution thereof: because the people out of respect to his Diadem, and Royal dignity did not execute the sentence upon him, so that he still remained in his house, and sat in the Throne transgressing the Law. And that the people did grievously offend in not casting the King by force, from government, the same Father ●estifieth in these words: This their negligence (saith he) provoked God to anger, stopped the course of prophecy: that I say saw not the Lord, till Ozias was dead. 
Homil. 4. Irascens Deus interrupt it Iudaeis prophetiam.  And consider the mercy of God that did not for this overthrow the City nor destroy the inhabitants, but as one friend expostulates with another, so did God with his people, deserving greater punishment: 
Homil. 4. & 5.  My people do you fear to expel this impure King? Do you so reverence his dignity, as to transgress my law? Will you not revenge my quarrel? Nor will I speak with you. I could myself have cast him out of the City: but what remained I le●t to be finished by you. I cast him out of my ●emple, he being a King, you have not put him out of your City. I bound him fast in Leprosy, as in a chain, and of a King made him a private man● he being now a private man you have not set upon him. Whom I condemned you had not courage to cast out. Thus S. Chrysostome, most clearly teaching the lawful deposition of Princes, and that subjects not only may but are bound to use force and execute that sentence upon them, when they are leprous 
(a) Hanc poenam regem sicut alium è plebe pati oportebat. Chrysost.  that is heretical, and for such declared by the Church. And this is peculiar to heresy, which (specially being joined with persecution) is a 
(b) Hic animi iam lepra quaeritur Chrys. ibid. Aug. l. 2. Euang. quaest. 40.  leprous and infectious sin, that when the Prince is namely denounced and cast out of the Church for it, the 
(c) Heretic cum pos●v●ā correptionem de●ita. ad ●it. c. 3.  Law of God and 〈◊〉 binds the Subjects (if they be 〈◊〉) to 
(d) Nulla cum haereticis cōme●ciaco●pulentur. Cyprian. l. ●p. 3. & ●eren● l 3 c 3. Tantum Apostoli & horum discipuli habuerun●●morem, ut ne verbo quidem communicarent alicui eorum qui adulteraverant veritatem.  sep●rate themselves from him, in respect of the danger. Which seems a doctrine so received anciently amongst Christians, that even the Popes who still stood upon the privilege 
(e) 
Prima sedes à nemine iudica●ur.  
Concil. Sinless. Synod. Romana sub Sixto 3. Bellar. l. 2. de pont. c. 26.   that they might be judged by no man, have ever yielded themselves 
(f) Can. si papa ●. 40. Innocent. 4 serm. de consecrat. Pontif.  subject to the Church and deposeable in this case: neither did Henry the fourth Emperor in his contention with Hidelbrand, or Gregory the seaventh, deny but for heresy he might be deposed. He pleaded he was no heretic, and that for other crimes the Pope could not depose him. 
(g) Ep. ad Gregor. 7. apud magdebu●. ●●t. 10. c. 8. de schismate. Dialog. 83.  The tradition of Fathers (saith he) is that I am to be judged by God alone, except I have declined from the Catholic faith, which God forbid.  
This doctrine of the Papists seems to answer what Theodidact else where objects, that even the Romanists themselves teach that excommunication not doth free the servant from obedience to his master. For though this be true in excommunication for other crimes, yet heresy is a crime that ha●h peculiar force by Christian institution to separate servants and sons from their heretical Lords and Fathers. 
Clemens. l. 1. Constit. Apost. c. ●8.  One of the Apostolical ordinations related by S. Clement, is, that Bishops ought to cast impenitent heretics out of the Church, and command the faithful not to have any manner of conversation with them. So out of S. Chrysostome they conclude that Christians may no more endure a Prince declared heretic by their supreme Pastor, then ●he jews might suffer a King declared Leper by their high Priest, whom they were bound under pain of g●uions sin to expel as you heard this foresaid Father affirm.  Philanax. 
I see the old Testament specially according to S. Chrysostom's exposition, doth not very plausibly prove regal independency of Priesthood: hath not Theodidact better arguments out of the new?  Aristobulus. 
He allegeth diverse testimonies, that every soul is to be subject to the higher powers: 
Pag● 55.  
Rome 13.  and of Father's averring, that there is no state, nor man in the world equal to the Emperor: 
Pag. 60.61  Which particularly to relate were to waste paper, seeing these testimonies prove no more; then what P●pists commonly grant. That K●ngs are Sovereign and supreme in temporal affairs, within their Dominions, 

Bellar. l. ●. de Pontif. c. 19 ●and. l. 2. vi●. mon. c. 4. Persons let. p. 16. n● 26. and Discuss. against Barley p. 31. Victor. relect. de potest.  
Eccl●s sects 4. propofi● 4.   That all men whatsoever, Prophets● Evangelists, Apostles, Priests, Monks that live within their states, are subject to their Government, and to the laws which they make, for the good o● the Common wealth. They prove that primitive Christians both laymen & Priests, were bound to pay tribute to the Emperor, & were in criminal causes answerable before the temporal Magistrate. For the dignity of Priestly state, and the special 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 conversion to Christianity, by the preaching and labours of Priesthood.  
The places then of Scriptures and Fathers show, that Priests even Apostles, were subject to the Emperor in causes temporal: but can any man with reason think that their testimonies import, that unbelieving Emperors were in all spiritual occurrences the sovereign Governors of the Christian Church. That the supreme Pastorship to decide doubts of faith, gather Counsels, or excommunicate disobedient Christians, was committed to them. I think Protestants will hardly grant this. Whence Papists infer, that had Kings been ordained by Christ supreme Governors' next himself in the Ecclesiastical hierarchy, he would have provided Christian Kings to furnish that place in the first erecting of his Church. Which seeing he did not, they further deduce that Kings cannot challenge by Christ's institution any place of government in Church-affayres: 
Matt. 16.  that the keys of his Church, signifying supreme authority were by him delivered not to Kings, but to Peter, by which gift he made him high steward of his house. Whosoever will be of Christ's family, must yield themselves, their swords, their Crownest subject to Peter's keys. Their souls you will say, but not their bodies, not their swords, not their Crowns. But against this they urge that, accessorium sequitur principal: What is accessary and consequent, still follows and waits upon the principal. The King submitting his person to the Church must needs likewise submit, together with his person, his Crown and sword, that not only as men, said in quantum Reges seruiant Christo, even as Kings they be servants to Christ. In acknowledgement of which superiority Constantine as S. Augustin writeth) eminentissimum culmen Romani Imperij diadema suum piscatori Petro subiecit, 
Epist. 62.  being the most eminent Sovereign of the Roman Empire, submitted not only his soul, but his sceptre and diadem to the fisherman Peter: to the end that Peter's keys might direct temporal power towards the consecution of eternal life, and to restra●ne the same, if at any time the owner thereof should use it, to the overthrow of Christianity.  
They bring an history to this purpose out of Suidas ● concerning Constantius the Arian, who seemeth the first that challenged this Supremacy in Church affairs. As he was says Suidas, ●nce sitting in Council in the midst o● many Prelates, judge of their Controversies, Leontius 
Suidas verbo Leontius.  the most holy Bishop of Tripoli reproved him openly, that being a secular & lay man, he would meddle with Church-affaires: which saying made that profane Emperor to conceive the undecency of the practice, that out of band for very shame be desisted. If to the favourites of Kings, ancient Fathers seem over plain and bitter, who call them that will govern in the Church Antichrists: so in my opinion we ought to take heed that our Church disgrace not herself, by being base and servile in this point, laying her Keys under the feet of Kings, which i● another extreme. 
Dial p. 58. and 59  What may we think of Theodidact who writes that the King saileth to heaven in his own ship, guided by his own subjects, over whom he is judge, and may punish them with death, if he find them (in his opinion) to deliver their own errors in steed of divine truth. S. Paul were he alive would preach, that the Church (the ship to convey passengers to heaven) is not the Kings, but Christ's, which he bought with his precious blood, 
Art. 20.28.  and the government thereof he committed not to Kings but to Bishops. The two Orthodox Saints and Bishops Hosius and Ambrose did they now live, 
apud Athan●sium. Apol. 2. Amb. ep● 33  would say, Palaces belong to Emperors, Churches to Priests. The great Gregory of Nazianzum were he now living, 
Naz. orat. ad princip●̄ irascentem.  his doctrine would be, that Kings are subject to the tribunal of Bishops, that Priests are the more eminent Governors, n●t Kings, subjects in Church affairs, but as another Gregory saith, 
S. Greg. ep. ad Herm. Metens. habetur. d. ●6. can. 9  their Fathers, Masters and judges: yea that it is miserable madness ●or Kings to go about with their wicked laws to make them be at their command, to whom they know that Christ together with the Keys gave power to bind in heaven and in earth.  
These and the like authorities of Fathers Papists heap together which I have brought, not that I desire that any thing be detracted from royal authority, but to the end that you may see, that it is not wisdom to ground Royal Sovereignty upon this Kingly Church-primacy, which Protestant's allow, Puritans detest, Papists with the saying of Fathers shake and batter.  Philanax. 
Herein I agree with you, 
Pag. 63.  yet that the Roman Bishop hath not this supremacy to depose Kings, I am moved to believe, by that which Theodidact writeth, 
Otho ●ri●ing. l. 6. c. 35.  that none of them exercised it before the time of Gregory the VII, otherwise termed Hildebrand, who excommunicated and deposed Henry the Fo●●th Emperor, about the year 1073● more than a thousand years from Christ's ascension, as Otho Frisingensis, living near those times saith: I read and read again the gests of the Roman, 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 prove that authority of the Pope, my drift is to show that King's Church-primacy is not advisely brought and placed as the pillar of their ragall Sovereignty. For, to that, which moveth you so much, behold the Papists how easily, and how many things they answer. First deposition being an extraordinary remedy against the persecution of heretical Princes, not to be used, but in cases of extremity; what wonder that practices thereof upon Roman Emperors have not been many? Moreover for the first 300. years after Christ there was no Christian Emperor on whom that power might be used. In the other two hundred, the Empire was so mixed of heathens and Christians, that this power could not be conveniently exercised. And for other three hundred years there was no Emperor of the west, but only of the ●ast residing in Grease, far from the sight of the Roman Bishops; so that to the Gre●●an patriarchs did the charge immediately belong, to proceed with censures, when they were needful, against Emperors. And against some they proceeded, though not against all; for some were good Princes deserving well of the Church, and others that were bad reigned not long, or were not so violent and incorrigible, as they urged the Church to use the last remedy of deposition. Finally that some heretics and persecutors, were not deposed, argues not want of power in Popes, but shows that circumstances of time, and persons might be such, as either in wisdom and clemency they would not use that power, or else could not with probability of success, or without danger of greater inconvenience.  
Howbeit the saying of Otho makes as much against the power of excommunication, as deposition, and is so strong, that I wonder how Theodidact, into his fundamental discourse for sovereignty (if he meant in deed to make it fundamental) would transcribe so notorious an error in history as this is, 
Dial. p. 63.  that no Roman Emperor was excommunicated before Henry the Fourth. For, 
Euseb. l. 6. c 25.  to omit what grave Authors write, that Philip a bloody Emperor was excommunicated by Pope Fabian the first, 
●ide Baro. Tom● 3. anno Domini 357. Nicephor. l. 3. c. 34. Symmac. Ap●log. ad Anas●as.  Constantius the Arian by Felix the second; who can deny that Arcadius & Eudoxia Emperors were excommunicated by Innocent the first, for being accessary to S. Chrysostoms' banishment and death? That Anastasius the Eutychian Emperor was excommunicated by Pope Symmacus, in a Roman Council, as the said Pope writing to the Emperor testifieth in these words; You say, that the Senate conspiring with me, I have excommunicated you● I have done so in deed, but therein I follow what hath be●n don● laudably by my predecessors before me. Philippicus the Monothelite was excommunicated by Pope Constantine, who commanded that the n●me of the Emperor should not be put in my writings public or private, or set upon any coin, either of brass, silver, or lead. Leo Isauricu● was excommunicated by the Gregories ●econd & third, 
Marian. Scot a. 712. Ado in chronico. Paulus Diaconu● l. 21. Zonara's To. 3. in vita Leonis● Isauric●. Sigeber● 7●7. Platina in Greg. 3.  and as some say deposed, whereby he lost the Empire of the west. Lotharius King, and Brother to Lewi● the second Emperor, was excommunicated by Nicholas the first, as Otho Frisingensis relates, and praiseth the Pope for that fact, calling him a religious Priest, and full of the zeal of God.  
Your see how false the saying of Frisingensis is, which you stood so much upon. What may be the drift of Theodidact who so carefully sets out the sayings of Authors, which he knoweth to be most false, and then by force draweth Royal authority to rely upon them. This I leave to your consideration. Nor do I see why his Majesty should make great account of this title of Supreme head, the true ●ignification whereof, our authors, when Papists press them with their arguments, renounce, and which was first usurped upon a known scandalous occasion, and by ●King, whom not only Papists, but also we Protestants point forth as a Monster, that (saith a late Historian) if the memory of former Tyrants, and of their cruelties were dead, hi● reign alone might suffice to bring them all again to life. 
Rawley in his story of the world. Preface.   
Why should his gracious Majesty run the course of opposition began by this King, whose name lies buried in disgrace and infamy, and his posterity turned into rottenness and dust? especially seeing this King Henry the Eight as he parted from his noble Father Henry the seaventh his affection towards the Roman Bishop; so likewise ●e degenerated from the love that his said noble Father bore to his Majesty's family. For it is well known that this first Head of the English Church sought to cast the hou●e of scotland from succession in the Crown of England, and to prevent the Blessed ●nion of both Kingdoms we now ●nioy. Which blessing rooted in his Ma●estyes person that it may be continued in the flourishing perpetuity of his Royal issue, my prayers are, that they may not be driven by flatterers into needless contention with the Church against which none ever opposed themselves, that did not either finally yield, or utterly p●rish.  Philanax. 
Herein you have fully satisfied me. Now I desire you to come to the third proposition, and the second pillar of sovereignty devised by Theodidact: 
Dial. p. 67.  That Tyranny, Infidelity, Heresy, or apostasy be not sufficient causes to release subjects o● their obedience to their sovereigns.  Aristobulus. 
Had you not put me in mind, I should willingly have forgotten this question. I cannot commend their wisdom that cause or permit Treatises that plead for the impunity of tyrants, to be set forth by his Majesty's special authority. Will any man think this impunity would be so eagerly defended, were it not also loved and desired? or loved for mere speculations sake, not for the use and ex●rcise thereof? It is enough for private men (as said a prudent 
* Livia apud Dion in Augusto.  Empress to her husband) that they be innocent, but Princes seeing they govern not brute beasts but men, must also procure not to be suspected: specially in matter of Tyranny, wherein subjects are naturally jealous, and apt to think the worst upon any light occasion. Sometimes weak denials be taken as grants. Kings that couldly detest tyranny, may soon be suspected to love it. Some kind of sins may never be named, without great show of execration, some may not be named at all, there being no words that can sufficiently express the horror, that when they are named must wait upon them. 
Ne coram populo natos Medaea trucidet.  Hence it is, that the rules of Tragedy command that bloody & barbarous murders be not represented on the strage, nor related without tragical declamations against them. 
Indignatur enim privatis ac prope socco  
Digni● carminibus narrare scaena Thyesta.   
This being the suspicious disposition of men; 
Dial's p. 75.  what may we think of Treatises set forth by authority wherein the bloodiest cruelties be related without horror; yea their Authors be named as worthy of honour, not as monsters, dese●●ing banishment from the face of the earth, and memory of mankind? What is this but to cast suspicions that his Majesty secretly affects such courses, and could find in his heart that most merciless tyranny might reign impunely? Wherein the wrong done him is exceeding great, his gracious disposition being as far, from loving Tyranny, as his happy Reign from the ex●rcise of it.  Philanax. 
His Majesty's known clemency, & innated aversion from blood, abundantly confirms what you say. Nor doth he stand upon this total impunity of Princes, that he would have true tyrants live uncontrolled: but because Common-people are so lightheaded and vnstayed, that if they b● permitted to resist their Prince in any imaginable case of tyranny, they wil● when they are displeased with him● though without cause, strait imagine that then is the cause of lawful resistance.  Aristobulus. 
We cannot deny, but this is the disposition of vulgar multitudes, which shows the wonderful uncertanity of humane greatness, and the great dependence that Kings have on God, in whose hands only are the hearts of the people, so likewise the sceptres of kings. God thought best to permit many lamentable examples of Commonwealth's cruelties against their Kings, partly to terrify the ambition of mankind, over greedy of that honour, partly for the punishment in this life of wicked governors, partly for the benefit of good Kings, that they might be more frequently mindful of ●eath and of the judgement consequent thereupon. As Kings have extraordinary licence and incitements to offend, so the divine wisdom to curb that liberty, hath provided them besides the dangers of common mortality, special reasons to fear death, and to be ready for their final account. The remedy which The●didact hath invented against this mischief, to wit, that this doctrine be continually beaten into Subject's ears, that they are bondmen to their Princes without any means of redemption, or liberty to run from them, how cruel soever they become towards them: this remedy (I say●) cannot prevent, but may rather accelerate the danger. Seneca writes that in his time there were such store of slaves in Rome, 
Li●●ius de magnif. Rom. l. 1. c● 16.  that the Senate having made an edict that they should wear a certain mark, whereby they might be discovered from freemen, ●hey were glad strait to recall it, seeing the danger that might ensue, if slaves should begin to compare their multitudes with the paucity of their Masters. Subjects being many in ●umber, it is not secure to sound still ●his lesson in their ears, that they are slaves by the condition of their birth bound to endure any horrible cruelties at the Prince's pleasure. For first put case they be persuaded that the commonwealth may not in such cases resist without sin, but are bound all one a●ter another to go quietly to the slaughter: yet the fear of offending God will hardly be strong enough to restrain them from seeking liberty. For seeing by the practice of former times it is known that liberty gotten sinfully, being now gotten is continued rightfully; they will rather choose to sin once then to be slaves ever. Secondly men are so strongly by nature inclined to favour their own liberty that well may Conquerors compel them by force of arms to endure, but never will Doctor by strength of argument convince them● to think that nature hath created them for such slavery, that by right of birth one family may tyranniz without controllement, a● others being borne to suffer without relief, or without any lawful powe● to resist. Wisdom would have such hateful. Doctrines kept from commo● people which do rather stir passion then persuade patience. The direful apprehension of the miseries of such slavery, will be more potent to awake aversion from kings in Subjects, than any preten●ed reasons from nature, scripture or history to allay i●, though those reasons were clear & plentiful in this point. The best course than is not to drive people into despair, and into desperate attempts by utter denial of remedy against cruel & merciless tyrants, but ●o to moderate matters, as to remove the life and state of Kings as much as may be, from popular rashness.  
And this course of moderation I know not any that do more exactly observe then the Papists, whom Theodidact singled out to be his adversaries. I will briefly declare what they hold in this point, not standing upon the truth of their doctrine, but only how honourable to Kings it is, and with what wisdom they have found out ● safe and moderate course between Scylla & Charybdis, without declining to ●auour, in their doctrine, either the rashness of common people, or the cruelty of tyrannons' Princes. 
Mol. de iustit. & iure tom● 1. tract. 2. disp. 23.  First then they teach that the King is Superior over the whole Commonwealth, not only over every particular subject & company. They disallow the Puritan doctrine, that the people have the same power over Kings, that the King hath over every one person. 
Dangerous positions l. 1. c. 4. vide Richard. Ha●lum de necessit. & dignit. unius Regis. c. 6.  They say also that the King in the necessity of the Commonwealth, & the state of the people so requiring, may do things contrary to the laws, liberties and privileges: that he may impose extraordinary tributs, inflict extraordinary punishments, not merely for his lust, but for the good of the Commonwealth. Finally the King is to iudg when the necessity of this extraordinary proceeding occurreth, nor are bounds to be prescribed to hi● royal privileges. This doctrine giveth ample power to the King, whereby he may both do many things very extraordinary justly, and teacheth people that they ●asily condemn not their Prince of tyranny, though his dealing with them be severe and rigorous  
Secondly they teach that Kings are free from bonds of laws, 
Aquinas 1.2. q. 96. art. 5. ad 3. Suares de leg. l. 3. c. 37. & alij.  so as they may not be called to account nor punished, much less deposed for ordinary and personal offences, or for their deeds injurious only to few. And hereupon they detest this proposition of Puritans, 
Dangerous posit. l. 1. c. 1.  judges ought by the law of God to summon Princes before ●hem for their crimes, and to proceed against them as against all other offenders: So that the Commonwealth cannot by the doctrine of Papists remove the Prince from government, but for crimes exorbitant which tend to the destruction of the whole state, nor then neither● except (all other remedies being first tried to reclaim him) he be found obstinate and incorrigible in his tyrannous course.  
And this shows the sillines of Theodidacts discourse, 
Pag. 67.  who would prove that Kings may not in any case be deposed, because Saul being a bloody tyrant who murdered 800. Priests at once, 
1. Sam. 22.18.19. 1. Sam. 24.12 & 2●. 23. 1. Sam. 24●  and persecute David, was not killed by David nor deposed, when he fell into his hands. But in this argument neither is the inference good, that no tyrant can be deposed, because Saul, a tyrant was not deposed: nor is the instance true, seeing Saul was not properly a tyrant. The cruelty that makes a tyrant, must be both obstinate without hope of relenting, and universal tending to the destruction of the whole state: which circumstances were in neither of these deeds of Saul. His murdering so many innocent Priests, was indeed a public calamity & cruelty, yet therein he was not obstinate, but soon relented, not persecuting Priests in the rest of his reign. His malice towards David was mortal and invincible, bu● that was not so general, being confined to one man and his followers● for the rest Saul was an administer of justice, and a defender of the common good, for which he lost his life.  
Thirdly they teach, 

Bourchier de iusta abdicatio●e. Lesle. de inst. l. 2. c. 9 lub. 4.  
Sess. 15● Dang. posit. l. 2. c. 1.   that Princes● though they be manifest and incorrigible tyrants, ye● may not be deposed, much less made away with out public sentence, and a juridical releasement of his Subiect● from their obedience. This their doctrine is defined in the Council o● Constance against the ancient Purita●nisme of john Wicklif●e, renewed in thi● age by john Calvin, and his followers, holding, that a private man having some special inward motion, may kill a Tyrant. Wherefore so long as the Commonwealth doth endure the tyrant, 
Pag. 72.74.75.  & not deprive him by public sentence, so long private men must endure him, must obey him willingly & for conscience sake. 
1 P●t. 2.16.18.  Thus the Fathers cited by Theodidact persuaded Christians to ob●y the ancient persecuting Emperors that were tyrants. Thus S. Peter, as also Theodidact largely urgeth, commanded the believing Iewe● to obey Claudius a bloody and barbarous Emperor: which must be understood in things not against justice and religion, & so long as the tyrannous Emperor should be tolerated by the Commonwealth. For who will thi●ke that S. Peter by that his exhortation meant, that they should obey Claudius further then for the time he should be admitted as lawful Prince? who can wi●h any probability imagine that S. Peter by that sentence decided the controversy between the Rom●n Emperor & the Senate, about the right of making and deposing Emperors: and that he defined in behalf of ●he Emperor that he might no● be deposed by the Senate? & that in case of deposition Christians were still to obey the deprived, not the new erected magistrate? I cannot think S. Peter did desire, that Christians in those times should busy their heads with these speculations, but simply for conscience sake obey the present Prince they found allowed in the state wherein ●hey lived, so long as he was permitted to rule. It would go hard with Kings, if their condition were like the Emperor; 
Apolog. pro reg. c. 4.  seeing the greatest patrō● of Kings dare not deny what Emperors themselves have acknowledged that they may be deposed by the Senate or Peers of the Empire. 
Vestri iuris esse fatemur (o principes) imperatorem creare, simul & destituere Naucler. gen. 41. an. ●●12. in O●h. 4.  So that these exhortations of Apostles and Fathers to obey tyrannous Princes for the time they be tolerated by the Commonwealth, which Theodidact urgeth so diffusely, come short of proving that Princes are in all cases indeposable.  
Fourthly the Papists hold that the sentence of deposition must not only be given by a public magistrate, but also by the whole magistracy and nobility of the Commonwealth, or by the far greater part thereof. And for this cause (they say) that neither julian the Apostata, nor Constantius, nor Valens Arian Emperors were deposed, which Theodidact exaggerateth as an argument of great moment to prove that Christians can use no forcible resistance against persecuting Princes. But the cause why these heretical Em●erours were not deposed, cannot be proved to have been want of authority in the Church, but because there wanted at that time means to unite the whole Empire in the business of deposing heretical Emperors. For from the time of Constantine to the sack of Rome by Alaricus, heathens and infidels did abound through the whole Roman Empire, many of them bearing chief offices even in the Senate, who could not be brought nor commanded to concur against Emperors for their heresy or apostasy: so that the attempts of Catholics to depose them could then have had no other success, but faction and civil war. Nor could the sentence of the supreme pastor unite them in that enterprise, seeing a great part of the Empire were Infidels (as hath been said) and so not the Pope's subjects.  
But when the Commonwealth consisteth of only Christians, than heresy and apostasy of the Prince joined with persecution ought to breed in them all, a general dislike thereof: & the sentence of their spiritual Pastor challengeth likewise universal obedience; so that if factions grow amongst them, the fault is not in the cause which is common to all, nor in the sentence which bindeth them all, but in themselves that are neither zealous in their Religion, nor obedient to th● Church. He that shall consider wha● orthodox Fathers have written against Constantius the Arian, will soon● perceive that the Bishops of the primitive Church were sharp censurer● of heretical Princes. They rebuke 
(*) Haec conspicis huiusmodi quae te iubent honorari intelligis: quae vero sacrae littere iubent te facere illa in quibus te monent sacerdotibu● obedire, fingis non n●sse. Lucifer. de non parcendo in Deum delinquent. fol. ●97.  him for gathering together places o● Scripture, that command that he b● honoured and obeyed, omitting other testimonies that give liberty to resist and bind him to obey his spiritual Pastors. They tell him in plaint terms 
Lucifer ubi supra p. 255.  they might deal with him as the Maccabees did with Antiochus whom they resisted, his armies they overthrew, cast him from the Kingdom of Iury. I tell thee Constan●ius (saith one of those Fathers) hadst thou been in the hands of Ma●tathias that zealous priest, so wicked a persecutor as thou art he would have killed thee: Thus bouldy writeth that Bishop, which shows ●hat the reason why Arian Emperors in those days were not deposed, was not want of just desert in the Princes, nor of power in the Church, but because the sentence would not conjoin the whole Commonwealth being then mixed of heathens & Christians, in the execution thereof, so that the sentence could not be lawfully executed without the assistance of some absolute temporal Prince. And this assistance the primitive Church in those days did not neglect 

Socrates l. 2. c. 18.  
Theodor. l. 2. c. 8. Sozomen. l. 9 c. 1. Niceph l. 9 c● 21.   to crave of Constantine the most pious & Christian Emperor who took upon him the protection of Catholic Bishops that were banished by his Arian Brother (Constantius) to whom he sent word, that unless he would restore them, Hostem se illi fu●urum, nec quicquam nisi bellum expectandum: that he would become his enemy, and that he should expect nothing from him but war. And as for julian the Apostata, I do fearfully relate what they write. For whereas by some it had been given out that he was by a Christian soldier deprived both of Empire & life, 

Theodoretus l. 3. Histor. c. 20. Nazian. orat. 2. in jul. Chrys. orat. in S. Babylam. Sozom. ubi supra.  
Nicephor. l. 10. c. 34.   they magnify the stroke whosoever were the Author thereof. And some Christian historians grant that, it is not incredible that some Christian soldier killed julian, and defend the fact as most glorious, seeing (say they) not only Pagans, but all men of what religion soever, even to our age have always exalted them that have taken away tyrants, venturing their lives for the liberty of their kindred and country: how much more glorious is it to do this for God and Religion? These sayings and the like may be found in the writings of the Ancients, which I do not bring as approving them; yea this last of private undertaking against Emperors I utterly mislike. But this showeth what I pretend, that it were better wholly to relinquish the discussion of this controversy, then to provoke men to produce these authorities, 

Mutatio regnorum quae non interposito sedis Apostolicae iudicio fit, non legitimè sed seditiose fit. Sanderus de vi●ib. Monarch. pag. 406. Mol. de iure. to. 1. tra. 2. disp. 11. Omnes Catholici Romanum Pontificem pro Christi vicario habent, per quem res in tota republica Christiana graui●●●mae semper de cidendae sunt.  
Sanderu● ubi supra.   and that they be not wise, or not friends of the King that will needs be stirring in this business.  
Fiftly Papists teach that a Christian Commonwealth may not proceed against their Christian Prince, though he be a tyrant, without the advice an● consent of the supreme Pa●stor of their souls. This they require not only in the case o● heresy and Apostasy, but also when subjects are moved against them for tyrannous oppression of their lives and temporal state. And their reason is because deposition being an affair of singular moment● ought to be done wi●h the greatest advice and deliberation that may be. Nor is it secure to commit the cause to the sole Commonwealth, lest the people out of passion, the Nobles out of ambition, be overforward to proceed against Princes. So that in my opinion Papists take a most mature course, and remove the life of Kings from the temerity of vulgar affections, one degree further than any other religion whatsoever. And seeing mankind with universal consent seem to allow that some means may be used for the commonwealths safety against incorrigible and deplored tyrants: I do not see that humane wisdom could have invented a proceeding more discreet and moderate then this of Papists, who, that a Prince may be deposed lawfully, require: First crimes manifest, that can no ways be excused: secondly crimes exorbitant, tending to the evident overthrow of the whole Kingdom: thirdly crimes with malice, incorrigible, leaving no hope of amendment: fourthly the public and vuiversall agreement of magistrates and Nobles of the Commonwealth. Fiftly that the case be proposed, and the deposition approved by their supreme Pastor, and his Counsel abroad.  
Finally, to prevent popular rashness, they further add, that the commonwealth in the execution of the sentence, must proceed per modum defensionis, non per modum punitionis, 
Molin. to● ●. de iustit. tract. 2. dis. 23. num. 8.  by way of their own defence, not by way of punishing their Prince. And in this their defence they must observe moderamen inculpatae tutelae, 
Dang. pofit. l. 1. c. 4.  that is, they must do no more than is precisely necessary for their own defence. 
Card. Perons' Oration, Eng●●s●●. 108.109.  Wherefore they may not, having deposed their Prince, arraign him, as Puritans teach, that being needless for their own safety. The King deposed still retains a certain remote right to the Crown, as it were a mark, or politic character that discerneth him from mere subjects: by reason whereof, if he repent of his Apostasy, and give the Commonwealth good security that being again restored to government, he will rule moderately, the Commonwealth may not by taking way his life deprive him of his possibility.  Philanax. 
Your discourse giveth me great content to see that Papists in their doctrine, provide so carefully for the security of Princes. That a King be deposed lawfully they require such a general consent both domestical and foreign, that it seems scarce possible that so many should conspire in passion, or that any Prince, by this doctrine, lose his Kingdom that is either friended abroad or beloved at home. For if the motion to depose the Prince arise from the Commonwealth, 
Executio non ad Pontificem pertinet sed ad alios. Be●l. adversus Bark. 6. 10● Cardinal. Peron. ora. pag. 106.  the last decision thereof is referred to the Pope and his Counsel that are foreigners, and not interessed in the Commonwealthes quarrel. If the treaty of deposition begin from the Pope, the execution must pass through the hands of the Peers of the Realm spiritual & temporal, whose love to their Prince will resist the Pope's sentence if they find the motive either openly unjust, as grounded upon temporal pretences, or not clearly and apparently just, as is required in a point of so many consequences. Nor do there want examples of Catholic Kingdoms that have stood for their Kings, when they thought that Popes were moved with humane respects: yea I have noted in the histories I have perused, and much wondered thereat. Protestants have been more forward and heady to follow the sentence of some Ministers or consistory against their Prince, then have Papists been in obeying the Pope's censures for the deposition of their King, that hardly can you name any sentence of deposition that hath been executed, and the Prince turned from his Crown by his Catholic subjects. Which difference seeing it cannot spring from any greater reverence, which Protestant's b●a●e to their spiritual governors (for it is known they do not so much esteem their Ministers, as the Papists do their Priests) it must proceed from this cause, that Papists loyal love to their Prince doth somewhat allay their prompt obedience to the Pope, when between him and their Prince contentions happen. But you have so discovered the weakness of Theodidacts arguments, that I have more cause to fear treason then expect reason in his discourses. I should have been glad if the doctrine that makes Kings in all cases indeposable could have been proved by solid and invincible arguments.  Aristobulus. 
How solid and invincible Theodidacts arguments are, you may give a guess, by this one which he urgeth very earnestly, that Christians may not depose Tyrants though never so cruel enemies of their Religion, because Christ commandeth them to love their enemies and persecutors. And verily I could smile to see Theodidact seriously dilate upon the precept to love enemies: We must (saith be) love them with our hearts, bless and pray for them with our tongues, and do good to them by our actions. If these duties be to be performed twards private men that are our enemies: how much more to public persons and Potentats of the earth. Thus he, and much more, showing great want of judgement thus to trifle in so serious an argument. For the precept to love our enemies, & to bestow benefits on them, urgeth the Commonwealth to depose tyrants rather than to the contrary. For what greater benefit can Christian charity bestow on tyrants that run headlong to everlasting perdition, then to remove them from government, from the world, & occasions of sin. Without doubt the precept of Charity would bind the Commonwealth to ●tay the damnation of tyrants by deposing them, did justice permit them that are not Superiors to bestow benefits & deeds of charity upon others against their wil The truth is, that this were against justice, though not against Charity, to take by force the sceptre from a Prince, who abuseth the same only to his own damnation, without endangering the Commonwealth. But if he commit sins that tend to the destruction of the state; if (saith the Chancellor of Paris) the great Patron of royal imunity, if the Prince doth manifestly, obstinately, really, & unjustly persecute his subjects, than that Principle of the law of nature takes place, violence may be repelled with violence. Thus much Gerson, and much more which I willingly pretermit: nor would I have said so much, but only to show that it were best not to handle these questiō●, specially in vulgar Treatises: and that you may see Theodidacts fraud, who loadeth on Kings many new titles, that are not so glorious as odious, which do not so much adorn as oppress, and weigh down Kings, by laying upon them the heavy burden of popular envy. Such is his fourth proposition which remains to be examined, 
Pag. 88  that there is no remedy besides tears and prayers, that may be lawfully used for the defence of the Church against the King, though he should be so tyrannous and profane as to oppress the whole Church, and utterly to extinguish the light of Christian Religion.  Philanax. 
The very sound of this proposition offendeth a Christian ●are, nor can I think it is grateful to his Majesty, who would (I dare say) wish himself dead a thousand times, rather than such a case should really hap, that he should extinguish the light of Religion, so little delight he takes that men should adore his Royal Dignity vested in these imaginary impieties. Nor doth Theodidact bring any proof thereof besides the patience of the jews, when they were persecuted by Aman, who won Assuerus to send forth a decree to destroy their whole nation both young and old, children and women in one day. Here (saith he) the whole visible Church which was only amongst the jews, 
Pag. 8●.  by the barbarous designments of Assuerus seemed to be in the very jaws of death, 
Esther. 4.  yet they take no arms, they consul● not how to poison Assuerus, or Aman, they animate no desperate person suddenly to stab them, but there was only great sorrow amongst them, and fasting & weeping.  Aristobulus. 
It is not probable that Aman had grant to murder the whole nation of the jews, but only all those that were out of their Country scattered in the Towns of the Persian Monarchy, whom Aman, 
Esth. c. 3.8.  speaking with Assuerus, termeth a people dispersed through all the Provinces of the Empire, and divided one from another, besides which there was a flourishing Church in Iury. Secondly whereas Theodidact saith, that amongst the jews in that extremity there was sorrow & fasting, and weeping only; that only he adds of his own head against God's express word, which besides these means to appease God's anger, setteth down other secondary means they used for their deliverance; for they better informed Assuerus, deceived by Amans sinister suggestions, using as instrument the Queen that was so gracious in his sight: resolved also to use other helps had that failed them, as Mardochaeus sent a message to Esther● per aliam oc●asionem liberabu●tur judaei, by some other way the jews s●albe released. Neither may we doubt but the jews (had they been able) might and would have resisted Assuerus, had he invaded their Country with intention to destroy them. For they might have done to him what their Ancestors did to his Persian predecessor, as 
(a) In ●hronico.  Eusebius 
(b) l●●. de Civit. c. 26  S Augustine, 
(c) l. ● Sacrae histor.  Sulpitius, 
(d) l. de sex aetatibus.  Beda & other Father's hold, that Nabuch●d●noso● was, that sent an army against them under the conduct of Holofernes, whom they resisted, as it is well known, with miraculous success. I do not examine the truth of their opinions whether Nabuchodonosor were in deed a Persian Emperor, but I note the judgement of the learned Christian antiquity, that they held it lawful for the people of the jews to use forcible resistance against their tyrannous Sovereign: neither doth any Father or Doctor reprove their opinion in this respect. And in what writings of Christian Fathers be not the Maccabees renowned that valiantly opposed themselues against Antiochus persecuting them for Religion, who was their lawful Prince? whose ancestors had peaceably enjoyed Sovereignty over jury from the time of Seleucus, for the space of an hundred and forty years, and were acknowledged by Priest and people as much as ever Persian or Roman Emperors were?  
And if we call to mind Christian histories, we shall find that as soon as the temporal sword was put into the hands of a Christian Monarch, the Christian Church craved the assistance thereof against Licinius the persecuting Emperor. Constantine went to succour the Christians of the East whom Licinius persecuted. 
D● vita Constant. l. 2. c. 3.  Being persuaded (saith Eusebius) that it was a great deed of piety & sanctity to relieve a great multitude of men, by deposing of one man from government. In which enterprise God did miraculously concur to give him victory, and Christian Bishops assisted him, which they would not have done had they thought no means lawful of seeking liberty from persecution of tyrants, besides tears and prayers. Clodou●us the first Christian King of France, 
Paulus AEmil. l. 1. in Clodovaeo r●g●.  how was he magnified for making war upon Alaricus the Arian King of spain, whose Empire in those days did embrace the greatest part of Gascony, whereof Clodoveus did dispossess the Goths, 

Greg. Turo.  
F●ist. Fran. l. 2 cap. 37.  
Amoyn. l. 1. 〈◊〉 gest. Fran●. c. 20  
Nic●phor. l. 16. cap. 6.  
Euagr. l. 3. c. 7.   and slew their Prince in the battle with his own hand, having no other quarrel then Religion against him. When Basiliscus the Nestorian Emperor went about to compel Catholic Bishops to condemn the Council of Chaldedon, Acatius Patriarch of Constantinople stirred up both people and monks against him, went to the Emperor, freely reproved his impiety, that out of fear he was glad to recall his Edict. Anastasius not many years after Emperor, 
Nicephor. ●. 26. cap. 26  friend of the Manichees & Arians, gathered a synod, and sought to constrained the Patriarch of Constantinople to condemn the Council of Chalcedon: The people strait in troops came to the place o● meeting crying● Now is the time of Martyrdom: 
Constant. Manas. p. 80.  Let no man depart from his Pastor: They reviled the Emperor, they called him Manichee and unworthy to be Prince: so that frighted to see the whole multitude re●use his government, he then gave over his enterprise. 
Ibid.  And when afterward relapsed again into his impiety, he sent soldiers to Jerusalem to cast Catholic Bishops from their sea, the Bishop and the two Abbots Sabbas and Theodo●ius (men most orthodox & of miraculous sanctity) gathered forces, and in the hearing of the Emperor's officer, excommunicated Nestorius and Eu●iches and their adherents, they drove the soldiers by force out of the Church, and their Captain to save his life was glad to run away.  
Many the like examples might be laid together out of antiquity, 
Nicephor. l. 16. cap. 3●  which show that, though tears, serious repentance, and prayers to God be the best the chiefest and readiest remedies, without which no other ordinarily prevail;) yet the Fathers judged that some forcible means may with due circumstances be lawfully used, rather than the light of Christian Religion should be extinguished, or at least this is clear, that this practice may be so confirmed by examples of Christian antiquity, that I cannot judge it wisdom to make these questions the common subject of discourse to the vulgar multitude. The only way to abate the estimation of things that by themselves are exceeding precious, is to compare them with other that incomparably exceed them in worth. Mortal life compared with eternity grows into contempt: stars shine not in the presence of the sun: great rivers seem nothing in respect of the ocean. The splendour of royal Majesty & power is as it were a sun shining among his subjects, the readiest way to make the sun seem dim in a pious and religious sight, is that which Theodidact useth, to compare the King and allegiance with God and religion, before whom even Angelical purity is darkness, and all created greatness put together, no more than one drop of morning dew in respect of the main sea. 
Canstant. Manasses in annalibus● p. 80.  A learned Graecian writes that a pious man cannot respect his Prince, when he sees the cause of Religion in danger: then he neither regards person nor dreadeth power how sovereign soever it be. 
Dangerous positions c. ●. p. 33.  Our writers think it an excuse of our first ●hospellers rebellion, that the light of the Gospel ●hining in their eyes, made them not see the majesty and greatness of Popish Princes whom they threw from their thrones. What wonder then if men that have zeal of Religion, do stagger at the allegiance we exact of them, seeing we openly require them to profess that the light of Christianity may be utterly extinguished, rather than the Prince resisted.  Philanax. 
You have showed that Theodidacts four propositions are ungrounded, & odious, and no sure foundations of sincere and dutiful allegiance: But you promised also to speak of the Oath of Allegiance, which Theodidact saith, stands upon these grounds, and what your opinion is concerning of rigorous urging thereof.  Aristobulus. 
I cannot believe that the chief inciters of his Majesty to the violent exaction of this Oath, do so much respect the common good, as their private interest, being men that live and triumph by the temporal miseries & calamities of Papists. When the desperate rage and temerity of some few of that profession had justly exasperated his Majesty, these their enemies that lay in wait to do them a mischief, suggested this device, which I cannot be persuaded that his singular wisdom and judgement would ever have liked but in these circumstan●s of perturbation● I will not rashly precipitate my censure in a matter of such consequence, and wherein his excellent Majesty is so much engaged: only I will offer unto your serious cogitation five considerations, which often present themselves unto me, and make me much doubt how this rigorous course of urging the Oath of Allegiance can stand with conscience, or with true policy, or with clemency, or with his Majesty's honour or safety. First how can we with safe conscience urge men to swear what even according to the principles of our Religion, is uncertain? Not only they that swear what they know to be false commit perjury, but such also as swear wha● they know not to be certain: because in swearing a thing that may be false, they go in danger to make God witness of falsehood. A truth so clear that it was known to a profane Poet, who sets it down in verse, that might beseem a Christian. 
— Ambiguae si forte citabere testis  
Incertae que rei, Phalaris licet imperet ut sis  
Falsus, & admoto dictet periuria Tauro,  
Summuncrede nefas animam preferre pudori.   
The doctrines sworn in the Oath cannot be more certain than the principles whence they are drawn: as the walls cannot be more firm than the foundation whereon they stand. Now if you call to mind the pillars of the Oath laid by Theodidact, you shall find they are at least doubtful propositions which not only Papists, but our Doctors are divided about. Yea for the most part both sides agree that they are false. Let Protestants then think how with safe conscience they swear, and v●ge others to swear the things, which being grounded upon principles uncertain, cannot be certain.  Philanax. 
I have heard that Widderington and some other Papists think the taking of the Oath lawful, because they iudg the opinion, That the Pope may not depose Kings, probable, and tolerable among Catholics: these men also swear upon a probability.  Aristobulus. 
Widderington & his adherents seem to be Theodidacts Cousin-germen, & with him secretly undermine the Oath of Allegiance, whereof they would be thought great friends: For either they commit perjury in swearing, or else elude the drift of the Oath. If they swear the thing itself, that the Pope wants that power, they that have but a probable persuasion thereof be forsworn; seeing they swear what they do not know certainly to be true. If they say that they swear not the thing itself, but only that they have an acknowledgement & belief thereof, & that this is true, seeing they feel a pr●pable assent to the points of the Oath; this answer cleareth them from perjury, but together takes from the Oath force to bind them. For if a man that only probably believes that the Pope cannot depose King's may take the Oath without being forsworn; then the Oath in the swearer requires only a probable persuasion of that point, & if only probable, then changeable upon better advice: for liberty to change is necessarily implied in a probable assent, seeing no law can exact that our speculative persuasion, be more certain and immoveable than reason & argument is able to make it. He that takes the Oath as a point of faith if he swear truly, can never alter his judgement therein without being forsworn, because unlawfulness to change being involved in the assent of faith, he that swears belief for the present, swears consequently he will never afterward change. But he that swears I acknowledge & believe the Pope cannot depose the King, meaning no more than I probably believe, though he swear truly ye● he may within three days or sooner change his mind without perjury: for neither did he swear expressly that he would never change, nor did the nature of the assent he professed, implicitly bind him never to change.  
And if this proposition, the Pope hath no power to depose the King, which is the foundation of all the other parts in the Oath, be sworn as probable, upon better advice changeable, who seeth not that the whole frame of Allegiance that is built thereon, is left to the arbitrement of the swearer, and that by widdrington's doctrine the drift of the Oath, to make his Majesty secure, is overthrown. I add hereunto that if the Oath be satisfied with a probable persuasion that the Pope cannot depose the King; then the Oath leaves liberty to the Papist that swears, to follow with safe conscience the contrary in practice, seeing they may, by common consent of their Divines, follow what probable opinion they please: yea they may without sin follow that opinion which they themselves think less probable. Which is to be understood when the Authors that allow the speculation of a doctrine, do not themselves condemn the practice thereof, as sometimes they do, because the doubtfulness of the speculation makes the practice clearly against Charity or Religion, or justice, as in the instances that Widdrington brings in his last reply. But no instance can he give when both speculation and the practice is allowed as probable by grave authors, that then Papists may not follow the same with a safe conscience. And such is the doctrine, that the Pope may depose Kings, their schools that allow the speculation, condemn not the practice. If than Widrington taking the oath of Allegiance may without breach of his Oath think the contrary doctrine, that the Pope may depose Kings, probable, he may with the Oaths good leave, by the principles of his Religion, also follow that doctrine in practice: so that swearers upon probabilities b● cunninger, but no better subjects than other Catholics that refuse the Oath.  
I conclude, that either we tender the new Oath to no purpose, or else we urge men further than in conscience they can swear. If we require but a weak and probable assent? what assurance doth his Majesty gain when the swearer may change his opinion at his pleasure, or retaining his opinion fo●low the contrary in practice? If we require firm and immutable assent, how can that assent be sure, the principles & means thereof being doubtful? ●ow can we with good conscience force men to swear that doctrine to be certain which we know depends upon points, disputable in our Church?  
The second thing I present unto you to be considered, concerneth the politic drift & intent of the Oath, which is to discover faithful subjects from those that are disloyally minded: may we not in true policy fear the Oath works the contrary effect? For may not loyal subjects refuse it upon persuasion that some point of Religion is therein indirectly denied? May not they that bear traitorous hearts take it, notwithstanding their intended treasons, not fearing to commit perjury in God's sight?  Philanax. 
You put me in mind of another doctrine of Theodidact, which seemeth to me strange, that men though most traitorous, in taking an Oath will not dissemble. 
Pag. 48.  God (saith he) by his immediate ●inger doth so straight oblige with secret terror, ●he most inmost conscience, that men obdurate ●o other grievous sins, will be tender and sen●●ble of the violation of an Oath. Hence he seems to infer, that even the gunpowder traitors would not have takē●●e Oath, but rather have miss of ●●eir design, and that all who refuse 〈◊〉, are of the same mind and stamp ●●at they were.  Aristobulus. 
This divinity of ●heodidact, which seems the ground of urging the Oath, is against the rules of true policy and wisdom. First it layeth the burden of infamons disloyalty on tender consciences, giving away the praise of fidelity to m●n that may be void of Religion and dissembling swearers. Secondly it goeth about to blind his Majesty's eyes, and lull his Counsel a sleep towards subtle and dangerous traitors, that go on the ground of that reacherons Thebean, Children are to be deceived with apples, but men with ●athes.  
Thirdly he goeth against the consent of all well-ord●ed commonwealth, which in trial of life and death use not to put men to purge themselues by Oath, fearing they wil● swear untruly to save their lives, which fear were needles did they believe that God in taking of an Oath did so perpetually constrained the inmost conscience of obdurate sinner's t● be tender in that point. 
De menda●io ad Consent. c. 22.  S. Augustine i● deed saith, that some unchaste women whi●● have not feared to deceive their husbands by wantonness, have been afraid to use God unto them as a witness of their chastity; but these were women perchance very few: and if in those times so tender a conscience was incident to all, or most unchaste wives; I dare say ●hey were more Godly and timorcus ●hen the adulteresses of these days, amongst whom perchance very few may be found that will lose their lives, rather than delude their husbands with an Oath. Howsoever, carnal sin, the motive whereof is fleeting pleasure, doth not so root out conscience, and obdurate the heart, as treasons and conspiracies against King & Country, which whosoever harboureth in his heart, it is a miracle if he be tender in violating of an Oath. And what Theodidact ●eigneth to make the refusers of the Oath odious, that those fanatical plotters would rather have lost their lives, then have dissembled in an Oath, their best friends will hardly believe they were worthy of so great praise. Wherefore men that are more timorous of a false Oath, then of the loss of their life, should least of all be suspected to have consciences capable of so vast treason as is the blowing up Parliaments with powder. Anacharsis compared the Athenian laws to the spider's web, wherein flies are caught, but greater beasts without difficulty break through them: so the Oath of Allegiance catcheth some scrupulous women, and t●●orous Papists, but great Traitors, that can without scruple plot and contrive bloody massacres & murders of Princes, these will easily blow away so trifling a sin (I speak comparatively) as is equivocation in an Oath. If amongst Papists there be any (as charity would have us iudg there be none) that nourish such bloody entendments, I make no doubt they be of that company that take the Oath. If amongst Puritans there be any so traitorously disposed, I dare acquit them that for conscience & fear of offending God refuse the Oath, & undergo the penalties thereof, as I understand some do. Those Puritans may be rather suspected that be deluder● of piously inclined people, that thinks they may lawfully lie for the glory of the Gospel, 
Hā● maximam seu ●egulam habent, licere pro gloria Christi mentiri. O●iander in epic. Hist. Centur. 16. pag. 79●.  that have drawn aversion to his Majesty from the very springe of his being, from the womb wherein most barbarously they went about to bury him before he was borne. As for Papists they bear him affection grounded in the stock, derived from mother to the son: these I say refusing to swear out of mere conscience may, according to the rules of prudency and policy, most of all be trusted, and deserve that the beams of his royal Clemency shine upon them.  Philanax. 
They that refuse the Oath, I see not why therefore they should be numbered amongst loyal subjects: yea rather fearing perjury, they seem to dissover disloyal affection, lurking in their hearts.  Aristobulus. 
Such as refuse to take the Oath in the prescribed form of words, at the same time offer to swear that they will be loyal to his Majesty in all occasions against domestical treasons or foreign invasions: either they meant sincerely or not: if not, first where is Theodidacts divinity that God so bindeth the inmost conscience that obdurate sinner's will not dissemble in oaths? Secondly why would you trust them, if they should swear the oath you prescribe, if they will dissemble in the Oath they offer to take themselves? much more they will and may dissemble in the Oath you force upon them under grievous penalties, if they mean sincerely, than his Majesty may be secure. What greater Loyalty can you desire? they will never yield to any treason, nor second or conceal any foreign invasion whatsoever. How can that stand with the principles of their doctrine, that the Pope may depose the King? Why should ●e be solicitous how they may do it with safe conscience? It is enough that we have their sworn love and affection to do it. Leave that care to them, when occasions fall, out particular circumstances will afford probable reasons to do the duty of subjects, without blemish to their Religion. Love is ingenious to find out reasons for excuse of the person we love: so we be assured of their love to Prince and Country, we need no more. But we be not sure thereof? How be we not sure when we see, those men that offer to swear it, ready to die rather than swear an untruth? having the greatest assurance they mean sincerely, that morality can afford, is it not pity that har●s so dutiful to their Prince should be plucked out of their breasts as traitorous, because they be so awful to God, that they willbe rather torn in pieces, then swear an uncertanity?  
Wherefore in my opinion, sworn duty of Papists were to be highly prized, yea most of all the allegiance of them, that be readier to die then to take the new oath. For their standing with such danger against an oath which they think unjust, shows they will not for humane respects swear but what really they believe to be true● nor promise but what they truly mean to perform. It may be justly supposed that these men, as they will rather dye, then swear Allegiance which they think not due, so they will lose their lives sooner than neglect the allegiance they have once sworn. And though they cannot frame their consciences to swear the speculative denial of th● Pope's authority to depose Princes in some circumstances imaginable, yet they are ready to swear that in practice they will stand with the King against ●ll treasons, and in all quarrels not openly and unexcusably unjust. Such as persuade his Majesty to neglect such loyal offer of love, I pray God their treacherous, flattery bring him not into occasions that he may need the help of such trusty subjects.  
This we see that already the flatterers have brought him to engage his Honour for the overthrow of the Pope's authority in this point, which is the fourth consideration that I made promise to present unto you. For I cannot think the success willbe such as might become the enterprise of so great a Monarch.  Philanax. 
The power to depose Kings at his pleasure which the Pope challengeth, so savoureth of presumption, & is so odious, that his Majesty needs not fear the success of so plausible a quarrel.  Aristobulus. 
This authority hath ●yn now many years together impugned, and the abjuration thereof urged under grievous penalties. What have we gained? or rather could this doctrine have more prevailed then by this opposition it hath done? Before this stir, I know some learned Papists denied that authority in the Pope; many that held it, thought it not a point of Faith, but the more probable opinion: and in France that opinion might scarce be spoken of. Now find me a popish Priest that holds it, or thinks that doctrine tolerable in their Church? When the matter was urged in France to have a like oath enacted, did not both Clergy & Nobility stand against it? When Cardinal Per●ns speech for the Pope's authority to depose K●nges was printed, what Papist durst p●t his name to an answer? We know that that doctrine forsaken of the Papists of France, was forced to fly for succour to his Majesties pen. Some Papists complain 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 seems not so disgraceful to the Pope, as to our gospel, that after so great promises to burn Rome, and overthrow Popery, the heat of all our controversies worketh upon this point, Whether Kings for their Crowns be the Pope's tenants at will. Would the Pope renounce his right in this point, for the rest we would not greatly care to give over. When I consider the late quarrel begun by our King Henry the 8. against the Pope, me thinks the success thereof hath been much like that of the Carthaginians under Hannibal against the ancient Common wealth of Rome. At the first the Carthaginians so far prevailed, 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 driven back into Africa; war w●s there maintained, that much ado they had to save their own● Carthage. Our Kings in the beginning strove with the Pope for supremacy in spiritual things, many Papists & even Bishops stood with the King, that the Pope was in danger to lose his Mitre. The more that matters were searched into, the more did the Pope's cause daily prevail: so that not only Papists be now clearly resolved in that point, as in a most notorious truth, but also Puritan mislike Princes supremacy: and even Protestants, as far as they da●e, go paring away pieces from it. And now the Pope secure of supremacy in spiritual things, pretends right to dispose of Crowns, when the necessity of Religion shall require it. And who seeth not that even in this controversy they daily win ground? Had not we s●t our s●lues to impugn this authority: had not so many books, fraught with weak arguments, which Papists conf●te with great show of truth on their side, been written against it: had not Priests lost their lives, & lay Papists their livings for it, I am persuaded it might have been buried in oblivion, or at least within their schools have been kept from common people's ●ares. Now persecution hath made the question so famous, as it will hardly be forgotten: the blood shed for the affirmative part thereof, hath printed the same deep in many m●ns conceits, yea the death of men so grave, learned, and pious hath made some Protestants that hated it before, cast upon it a more favourable look. 
— Per arma per caedes, abipso  
Sumit opes, animumque serro.   
And this is a very remarkable proceeding of Popery, different from the course of our Gospel. The light of our Gospel shined exceeding bright at the first: there was no division amongst our gospellers: it stirred up in men's hearts wonderful zealed that (as one noteth) out of pure light they did not consider what they did, 
Dangerous positions p. 33.  and i● their zeal their goods, lands, children, wives, and lives were not greatly dear unto them. With time this light waxed dimmer and dimmer, the doctrine less certain, they grew into factions and sects, and thereupon their zeal become could, that now the greatest fear is (as oftentimes from one extreme men are prone to fall into the clean opposite) lest the supposed clear shining of truth, make men uncertain and not greatly zealous of any Religion at all. The Papists contrariwise, when controversies are first raised, are very wary and circumspect, their censures be not absolute, there are commonly diverse opinions amongst them, the more that Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, testimonies of antiquity, and reasons are examined, the more they grow into consent, the more resolute and immoveable they become in their doctrine, more zealous one day then another to give their lives for it. This course they hold in the doctrine of the Pope's power, which in the beginning was taught neither so certainly, nor universally, nor zealously as now it is, and willbe every day more and more, except these controversies be removed from vulgar examination, which cannot be so long as the oath is urged: seeing such as are to swear, must (lest they be forsworn) search into the certainty of this Truth, and read books that treat of that argument. And when no other inconvenience should ensue of this course; this alone might move the prudent friends of Kings to labour the silencing of this controversy, that the words of deposing and murdering Gods anointed, which should be buried in the depth of amazement & horror, come by vulgar disputation to sound familiarly in every ear. 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, 
Pudor rerum pe● verba dediscitur. Sen. ep. 77.  that where speech against the Pops authority for deposing of Kings hath been rifest, & most vulgar, those Countries for practise against the life of their Kings have been most unfortunate: Whereas Spain hath seen no such tragical practice, nor any attempt thereo●, but hath enjoyed a long happy peace, where the questions how to proceed with Tyrants are freely permitted to the schools, without any popular declamations against Scholastical opinions in this point.  Philanax. 
I must confess that I have been myself much deceived in my expectation about the success of Papists in this controversy. When I considered the circumstances of the contention, the doctrine impugned not grateful to Princes, not so clearly decided in their Church, by some of their writers denied, the person impugning by sword and pen a Monarch mighty, learned, & beloved even of Popish Potentates, and this at a time of great advantage upon the gunpowder treason, which was urged as a sequel of this doctrine, that even the greatest favourers thereof seemed fearful. These circumstances made me think that P●pery would receive a great blow, and that his Majesty would draw the whole Church to be of his opinion. What the success hath been we see, & you have showed. I could wish the Controversy might not have further progress, & be now buried in silence, that posterity may not say, that Rome grew by his Majesty's opposition against it, that this point of her authority was made renowned by victory over him, & what the Papists before did doubtfully defend, the blood of their Martyrs suffering under King james made certain, known, illustrious. And peace concluded about the silencing of this controversy might be the beginning of an universal agreement with that Sea, seeing other doctrinal controversies by discussion be brought to that issue, that (as I have heard some learned & intelligent persons aver) a calm consultation void of private interest, and animosity might soon end them.  Aristobulus. 
This peace were much to be wished nor is it safe to maintain strife with that Sea, but upon unavoidable occasions. And this is the fifth and last thing which I wish you would seriously ponder, and not wonder that this counsel should be suggested by me that am no Pa●●st.  
The known bad success that Kings and Princes have still had in their oppositions against the Roman Church may move sufficiently all faithful Counsellors, though not of the Pope's Religion, never (if they may choose) to engage their So●craignes in such quarrels. 
judith. c. 2●  Arioch the Ammonite Prince could tell Holosernes out of experience, that his power and force would not be able to subdue the jews, that in the end he would be repelled with disgrace, yet he was not a jew in Religion. The like advice Amon● Counsellors that were heathens gaue● him, 
Esther. c. ●.  to desist in his quarrel against Mardochaus the jew: Thou canst not (say they) resist him, he being of the stock of the jews, but shalt fall be●ore him. It was noted that when Octau●a● and Antony were youths, still in their games Octavian had the best: whereupon a prudent friend gave Antony warning in civil controversies never to encounter him. 
Plutarch de fortu●● Romano●um  Thou art (said he) more noble than he, more eloquent and better qualified, yet I see clearly his Genins is stronger than thine: if thou try the fortune of war with him, he will doubtless be Conqueror. What the cause may be why it should be so, who knows? but experience, now a thousand and six hundred years' old● shows that this is the● fate and felicity of that Sea, to conquer with their patience and bring vnd●● subjection, & into nothing, all the opponents against their doctrine, or their authority. The Roman Emperors for 300● years together bloodily oppugned Christian Religion, but principally the Roman Sea, in so much as thirty Bishops thereof were martyred, 
Epist. 52.  and the persecuting Emperors (as S. Cy●rian saith) were more grieved that a new high Priest was placed in that Sea, then that a new Prince was chosen & set up against them. What was the success? For those three Centuries of years, scarce any Emperor that persecuted them, can be named, that derived the Empire to a third heir, or died not an unfortunate death: and in the end Constantine, their Successor, submitted the Empire to the obedience of the Roman Bishop, wherein the Empe●ors that followed him continued.  
Afterward so●e Christian Emperors begun to quarrel with the Church about the privileges and immunities of the Clergy, specially Valentinian the third, and the succeeding Emperors of the West. Did they prevail? In their days the western Empire began to decay; The Franks took to them France; the Saxons, Britanny; and Wandalls Asrick; the Visigothes, Spain; the Goths, Italy ● which ●oone after were made Christians and submitted their Kingdoms to the Pope, and their Kings professed to receive their Crowns & authority from him.  
Who knoweth not how pitifully the Eastern Emperors, and the patriarchs of Constantinople vexed th● Pope for many ages, which their quarrel they never would give over till finally they fell into the miserable bondage & slavery of the Tu●ke, wherein at this present, without hope of remedy, they groan.  
What success (to omit many other experiences) had the Germane Caesars, that strove with the Pope for the investiture of Bishops by staff & ring? Henry the 4. excommunicated and deposed by Gregory the 7. upon that cause, prospered for a while, which this treatiser sets down to encourage Princes to follow his example, but he concealeth how in the end (in punishment of his rebellion against his spiritual Father, 
Sigon. de Regno ●●a●. l. 9 in Hen●. 4.  as Papists think) he was deposed by his own Son, put in prison, whence escaping he gathered forces, was defeated, & brought to such want, as he sued to be Sexton in a Churc●● and serve Priests Mass, who had most cruelly vexed the high Priest of Christians many years together. Not admitted to that office, he turned himself to beg of laymen, in lamentable manner, crying, Have mercy on me, at least you my friends, for the hand of the Lord hath touched me: and so full of misery, repentance, and anguish of mind, he pined away to death. The news whereof was received with general joy of all Christians. And his Son, though for a while he trod the steps of his Father's disobedience: yet finally he yielded up his right, in possession whereof the Roman Bishop is at thi● day. Wherein not only the success which Popes had against so potent Adversaries, as was Henry the 4. who fought more battles than ever did julius Caesar, but their courage and confidence also was admirable. Neither ought any discreet Protestant trust Theodidacts relation of Hidelbrands fainting in the quarrel, taken out of Sigebert a partial Monk; 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 constancy, using at his death these words: Because, I have loved justice, and hated wickedness, I now die in banishment. Vrbane that succeeded Gregory both in office and in zeal against the Emperor, being driven out of Italy into France, having so great need of the King's assistance; yet was he so void of humane respects, that at that very time he excommunicated Philip King of France, for putting away his true wife, and living in open incest. 
Papyrius Maslonius Annal. Franc. l. 3. in Philipp.  The King (saith an unpartial Historian) threatened, that except Vrbane would restore him to the Church & Crown, he would depart with his whole Kingdom from his obedience, & the obedience of the Roman Sea: yet this moved not that most holy Bishop to relent. In fine Philip was fain to yield; not being able to extort otherwise releasement from excommunication, and so religion & conscience prevailed over th● Sceptre and the Diadem, & the invincible Majesty and Name of King. So admirable for constancy were those Popes that used their authority to depose wicked Emperors, & so free from love of the world, that we may justly think God favoured their cause. Howsoever their perpetual good success for so many ages against all adversaries, though the reason thereof be hidden, may give just cause (in my opinion) for Kings to be wary, how they adventure their Crowns upon prevailing against them; and how they device new oaths of Allegiance that wage war against the authority of their Sea. And this is the last thing which I desire to leave to be seriously pondered by you that love the King: & so I conclude, praying the Lord heartily, that as hitherto he hath defended Kingly authority in our great Brittany from open enemies: so now he will defend the same from secret plots and traitorous Treatises, which by show of friendship seek the overthrow thereof.  Philanax. 
I am glad (Aristobulus) that we fell into this discourse, in which you have clearly descried Theodidacts fraudulent undermining of Royal Authority. The publishers of that book, besides their secret plotting against 〈◊〉 sovereignty of Princes, seem like●●●● to have had an eye to their own ●uere in the divulging thereof. For there being a command, that this Book both in public and private schools be read to Children of both sexes, & each book sold for six pence which is hardly worth two pence; you must needs see a great sum of money that hence is yearly made: a sum, I say, so great, as doth far surpass the custom of the Peter-pences, which in old time every house paid to the Pope. Notwithstanding at this their enriching themselves by this device, I do not so much grieve: but I am heartily sorry that so many odious & ungrounded positions concerning Royal Authority that may raise up horror rather than love of Kings, be instilled into the tender minds of Children, which afterward, when any occasion is given, may soon turn into hatred. But thereof yo● have spoken enough. Wherefore I likewise will end with your hearty good wishes towards his Majesty, and our most gracious Prince Charles, beseeching the Almighty to defend them both, and to give them the spirit of wised 〈◊〉 whereby they may discover these ●●●●sons hidden with a show of friendship.   

The Printer to the Reader.  
THIS Treatise (gentle Reader) may seem written by some English Protestant, against some Puritans, enemies of Kingly Sovereignty; which by them in former times openly impugned, they now seek to overthrow, by grounding the same upon odious, and dangerous Positions touching the immunity of Tyrants. The Author disputeth the question of this weighty subject, in such moderate style and manner, bringing 〈…〉 ns both solid, and not reg 〈…〉ing with Catholic doctrine, that he may be thought to be in opinion Catholic, though for modesty's sake, & to the end that this truth might be more pleasingly accepted of Protestants; in this work he discourseth as if he were Protestant. And for this reason, some Catholic arguments he doth pretermit; others he doth not urge to the uttermost, partly for brevities sake, but chiefly because his intent is no more than to show that the new Protestants principles from which they deduce Royal Authority be at the least doubtful and uncertain. And this he doth clearly demonstrate, and thence concludes. that it is against the rules even of humane policy, to forsake the most sure grounds of Sovereign Power in Kings, whereon Christian Kingdoms relying, have hitherto stood firm and flourished vnd 〈…〉 Catholic discipline & just l 〈…〉 and to build the sacred authority of Princes, whereon their people's safety depends, upon the new ungrounded Doctrines, & Paralogismes of Scriptures, which seems to have been the drift of the former Dialogue.  
For this cause, I thought it would not be amiss, nor lost labour, to put the same in print, renewed before hand & corrected.  
The title, God and the King, I would not alter, because i● two words, it doth fully put down the Catholic opinion concerning Prince's Authority, & their subject's Allegiance. For (as this treatise doth insinuate) three opinions in this point now are in England. The first of Puritans, who will have God without King, or else such a King that must depend on the people's beck, 〈◊〉 their Consistorian Preachers, 〈…〉 ose perfidious audacity, his ●●●esty hath had sufficient experience. The second is of Politicians, who have no more Christianity, then Parliamentary decrees breath into them: These will have King without God, or at least King and God, that is, God so long, and no longer than the King shall please, whom they will have still obeyed, though he go openly about to extinguish the light of Christian Religion. The third opinion is of Catholics, whose ●ote is, God and the King● in the first place they worship God; in the second the King, to whom they give all Allegiance and subjection as far as Religion and conscience will permit. And this is to give, what is Caesar's to Caesar, and what is Gods to God. Farewell.  
FINIS.