For heresy is nothing else but a private opinion,obstinately maintained,contrary to the opinion which the public person (that is to say,the representant of the Commonwealth)hath commanded to be taught.By which it is manifest that an opinion publicly appointed to be taught cannot be heresy;nor the sovereign princes that authorize them,heretics.For heretics are none but private men that stubbornly defend some doctrine prohibited by their lawful sovereigns.
But to prove that Christians are not to tolerate infidel or heretical kings,he allegeth a place in Deuteronomy where God forbiddeth the Jews,when they shall set a king over themselves,to choose a stranger:and from thence inferreth that it is unlawful for a Christian to choose a king that is not a Christian.And it is true that he that is a Christian,that is,he that hath already obliged himself to receive our Saviour,when he shall come,for his king,shall tempt God too much in choosing for king in this world one that he knoweth will endeavour,both by terror and persuasion,to make him violate his faith.But,it is,saith he,the same danger to choose one that is not a Christian for king,and not to depose him when he is chosen.To this I say,the question is not of the danger of not deposing;but of the justice of deposing him.To choose him may in some cases be unjust;but to depose him,when he is chosen,is in no case just.For it is always violation of faith,and consequently against the law of nature,which is the eternal law of God.Nor do we read that any such doctrine was accounted Christian in the time of the Apostles;nor in the time of the Roman Emperors,till the popes had the civil sovereignty of Rome.But to this he hath replied that the Christians of old deposed not Nero,nor Dioclesian,nor Julian,nor Valens,an Arian,for this cause only,that they wanted temporal forces.Perhaps so.But did our Saviour,who for calling for might have had twelve legions of immortal,invulnerable angels to assist him,want forces to depose Caesar,or at least Pilate,that unjustly,without finding fault in him,delivered him to the Jews to be crucified?Or ff the Apostles wanted temporal forces to depose Nero,was it therefore necessary for them in their epistles to the new made Christians to teach them,as they did,to obey the powers constituted over them,whereof Nero in that time was one,and that they ought to obey them,not for fear of their wrath,but for conscience sake?Shall we say they did not only obey,but also teach what they meant not,for want of strength?It is not therefore for want of strength,but for conscience sake,that Christians are to tolerate their heathen princes,or princes (for I cannot call any one whose doctrine is the public doctrine,a heretic)that authorize the teaching of an error.And whereas for the temporal power of the Pope,he allegeth further that St.Paul appointed judges under the heathen princes of those times,such as were not ordained by those princes;it is not true.For St.Paul does but advise them to take some of their brethren to compound their differences,as arbitrators,rather than to go to law one with another before the heathen judges;which is a wholesome precept,and full of charity,fit to be practised also in the best Christian Commonwealths.And for the danger that may arise to religion,by the subjects tolerating of a heathen,or an erring prince,it is a point of which a subject is no competent judge;or if he be,the Pope's temporal subjects may judge also of the Pope's doctrine.For every Christian prince,as I have formerly proved,is no less supreme pastor of his own subjects than the Pope of his.