Choise did at times beside many other Enormities erect Malestews Of the two Nations whose Examples you use the Romans and the Lacedemonians the first did the like under divers Empâ—rours as Lampridius writeth and in more ancient times allowed also Parricide of Children the other would sort themselves by fifteen and twenty Families together and hold both Wives and Goods in common I omit the unnatural customs of divers other Nations and will now declare how in straining a few Examples to countenance your Conceit you are constrained to bear your self no less cunning in concealing truths than bold in avouching things which are not onely uncertain but plainly false It is true which you write that the Kings of Sparta by the institution of Lyâ—urgus were obâ—dient to the Officers called Ephori but these were Titular Kings having no other power but a single voice among the Senators and because all Affairs were carried by consent of the People the Estate was then esteemed popular Afterwards Theopompus by pretence of an Oracle drew this Authority from the People to a Senate of thirty whereby the Government did change into an Aristocracy and yet the naked name of Kings was retained By this shuffling-off Rule the Lacedemonians were continually tossed with Tempests of Sedition ceasing not to wade in their own Bloud as before you have acknowledged until in the end they were brought into subjection first by the Macedonians afterward by the Achaeans and lastly by the Romanâ— I will not say now what reason have we but what a shame is it for us to open our ears to these Utopical State-writers who being mellowed in Idleness and having neither Knowledge nor Interest in matters of Government make new Models upon disproportioned joynts borrowed from Nations most different in Rule You affirm by the testimony of Livy that for offence taken against Romulus because he raigned at Pleasure and not by Law the Senators did cut him in pieces in which short Assertion many base untruths are included beneath the degree of any vile word Livy writeth that he sorted the People into order and governed them by Laws and that he was also both advised and valiant in the Field even such a one as Homer describeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both a good King and courageous Commander Concerning his end Livy writeth that in taking muster of his Army a thick Tempest did arise after which he was never seen wherein he is seconded by Solinus Eutropius and the rest onely Livy addeth that there was a rumor but very obscure without any certain either Author or ground I will adde also without probability that he was torn in pieces for how probable is it that such a Fact in the open view of his Army could be very obscure How probable is it also that the People would first tear him in pieces for his Injustice and then worship him for a God Further with what either confidence or conceit do you alledge this Report of Livy for his opinion I find your fetch you apprehend every thing which may if not confirm yet countenance that Doctrine which lately you have drawn out of Cerberus Den That it is lawful to contrive the death of Kings That the People were grieved against Servius Tullius for reigning without Election it is a meer Fantasie a Dream a Device Livy saith that he was declared King with such a Consent as no man had been before him That Tarquinius neglected the Laws of Government prescribed to him by the Common-wealth it is an ugly untruth Livy saith that he brake the ancient manner of Kings before him But for Laws Pomponius affirmeth that at that time the Romans had no Laws but from their Kings and that Sextus Papirius reduced them into one Volume which was called the Civil Law of Papirius and that when the People expelled their Kings they abrogated their Laws also and remained twenty years without any Law Lastly you adde that the Romans did expel their Kings and erect Consuls in their stead but you suppress that which followed which I hold for a common consequence of the like disorder First that for this cause they were presently almost overwhelmed with Wars Secondly that in this state they never enjoyed long time free from Sedition Lastly that as Tacitus saith there was no means to appease these Tumults but by returning to a Monarchy again All this I write rather to manifest the manner of your dealing than that I hold it much regardable what Romans did Your Examples of our present Age I will wrap up in these few words All Nations very few excepted do consent in this form of Government first to be under one Prince secondly to accept him by succession according to propinquity of Bloud In other circumstances either for inaugurating their Prince or for the manner of managing and executing his Government not two Nations in the world in all points do agree And yet is not this diversity raised by any Laws which the People do prescribe unto their Prince as you do most grosly yea peevishly yea maliciously affirm but by the particular Laws and Customs of every Nation in which the consent of the Prince either secret or express sometimes onely is sufficient always principally doth concur Upon this diversity of Customs you conclude that it sufficeth not to alleadge bare propinquity of Bloud What not where that Custom is established as I have declared it to be in most Nations of the World Doth difference of Customs make all Custom void Doth diversity of Custom in some circumstances take away the principal Custom of Succession by Bloud This cleaveth together no surer than Sand you lose both labour and credit in obtruding unto us these weak and loose Arguments without either force of Reason or form of Art Your instance of the Law Salick in France doth offer occasion to enter into a large Field wherein I could plainly prove that there was never any such Law made to bind the descent of the Crown of France and that it hath been the custom in most parts of the world not to exclude Women from succession in State insomuch as Beda and before him Eusebius and Pliny do write that certain People were governed onely by Princes of that Sex But because this is a matter both of long discourse and not proper to our purpose I will contain my self within this Observation That the Exclusion of King Edward the Third from the Crown of France upon this pretence was the cause of the effusion of their bravest Bloud and of the spoil waste and conquest of all that Realm I acknowledge that the English have lost the possession of that Conquest and that was by means of domestical Wars for excluding the nearest in Bloud from the Crown into which unquiet Quarrel you do now endeavour again to embark us Yet no man can assure that the miseries of France for this cause are at an end Rams recoil to strike harder
about to please men If I should please men I were not then the servant of Christ. I will give you an example of another time Nebuchadnezzer King of Assyria wasted all Palestina took Hierusalem slew the King burnt the Temple took away the holy Vessels and Treasure the residue he permitted to the cruelty and syoyl of his unmerciful Souldiers who defiled all places with rape ruine and blood After the glut of this butchery the people which remained he led captive into Chaldaea and there commanded that whosoever refused to worship his golden Image should be cast into a fiery furnace What cruelty what impiety is comparable to this and yet the Prophets Ieremiah and Baruch did write to those captive Jews to pray for the prosperity and life of him and of Baltazar his Son that their days might be upon Earth as the days of Heaven and Ezekiel both blameth and threatneth Zedechia for his disloyalty in revolting from Nebuchadnezzar whose homager and tributary he was What answer will you make to this example I am wisely busied to cast forth this question what answer can you make which your own knowledge will not convince Many other places there are in holy Scripture whereby not onely our actions are tied to obedience He that doth presumptuously against the Ruler of the people shall die but also our words Thou shalt not speak evil against the Ruler of the people yea our secret thoughts Detract not from the King no not in thy thought for the fowls of the air shall carry thy voice The reason hereof is not obscure Because Princes are the immediate Ministers of God and therefore he called Nebuchadnezzar his servant and promised him also hire and wages for the service which he did And the Prophet Esay calleth Cyrus a prophane and heathen King the Lords Anointed For as Solomon saith The Hearts of Kings are in the hands of the Lord and he stirreth up the spirit even of wicked Princes to do his will and as Iehoshaphat said to his Rulers they execute not the will of man but of the Lord. In regard hereof David calleth them Gods whereof Plato also had some sense when he said A King is instead of God And if they do abuse their Power they are not to be judged by their Subjects as being both inferiour and naked of Authority because all Jurisdiction within their Realm is derived from them which their presence onely doth silence and suspend but God reserveth them to the sorest tryal Horribly and suddainly saith the wise man will the Lord appear unto them and a hard judgment shall they have You Jesuits do yield a blindfold obedience to your Superiours not once examining either what he is or what he doth Command and although the Pope should swerve from Justice yet by the Canons men are bound to perform obedience unto him and God only may â—udge his doings and may a King the Lords Lieutenant the Lords Anointed in the view of his Subjects nay by the hands of his Subjects be cast out of State May he as was Actaeon be chased and worried by his own hounds Will you make him of worse condition than the Lord of a Mannor than a Parish-Priest than a poor Schoolmaster who cannot be removed by those that are under their authority and charge The Law of God commandeth that the child should die for any contumely done unto the Parents But what if the Father be a Robber if a Murtherer if for all excess of villanies odious and execrable both to God and Man Surely he deserveth the highest degree of punishment and yet must not the Son lift up his hand against him For as Quintilian saith No offence is so great as to be punished by parricide But our Country is dearer to us than our selves and the Prince is the Father of our Country whose Authority as Baldus noteth 〈◊〉 greater than of Parents and therefore he must not be violated how impious how imperious soever he be If he commandeth those things that are lawful we must manifest our obedience by ready performing If he enjoyn us those actions that are evil we must shew our subjection by patient enduring It is God onely who seateth Kings in their State it is he only who may remove them The Lord will set a wise King over the people which he loveth as himself doth testifie And again For the sins of the land the Kings are changed Aâ— therefore we endure with patience unseasonable weather unfruitful years and other like punishments of God so must we tolerate the imperfections of Princes and quietly expect either reformation or else a change This was the Doctrine of the ancient Christians even against their most mortal persecutors Tertullian saith For what war are we not both serviceable and ready although unequal in number who do so willingly endure to be slain neither want we strength of number but God forbid that Religion should be maintained with humane fire From him also St. Cyprian a most studious reader of Tertullian as St. Hierom noteth in like manner writeth Although our people be exceeding copious yet it doth not revenge it self against violence it suffereth St. Augustin saith It is a general paction of humane society to obey Kings Which sentence is assumed into the body of the Canon-Law In a word the current of the ancient Fathers is in this point concurrent insomuch as among them all there is not one found not any one one is a small number and yet I say confidently again there is not any one who hath let fall so loose a speech as may be strained to a contrary sense How then are you of late become both so active and resolute to cut in sunder the reins of Obedience the very sinews of Government and Order Whence had Benedâ—tto Palmio a Jesuit his Warrant to incite William Parry to undertake the parricide of our Queen whence did Annibal Codretto another Jesuit assure him that the true Church made no question but that the fact was lawful Whence did Guignard a Jesuit term the Butchery of Henry late King of France an heroical act and a gift of the Holy Ghost Whence did he write of the King who now there reigneth If without Arms he cannot be deposed let men take Arms against him if by War it cannot be accomplished let him be murthered Whence did Ambrose Verade Rector of the Colledge of the Jesuits in Paris animate Barriers as he confessed to sheath his Knife in the Kings breast assuring him by the living God that he could not execute any act more meritorious Whence did the Commenter upon the Epitome of Confessions otherwise the seventh book of Decretals commend all the Jesuits in these terms They set upon Tyrants they pull the Cockle out of the Lords field It is a Rule in Nature that one contrary is manifested by
your imaginary Audience to applaud your Opinion as worshipfully wise you proceed to declare what ought chiefly to be regarded in furthering or hindering any Prince towards the Crown Three Points you say are to be required in every Prince Religion Chivalry and Justice And putting aside the two last as both handled by others and of least importance you assume onely to treat of Religion wherein either Errour or Want doth bring inestimable Damage to any State You draw a long Discourse That the highest End of every Commonwealth is the Service and Worship of God and consequently That the Care of Religion is the principal Charge which pertaineth to a King And therefore you conclude That whatsoever Prince doth not assist his Subjects to attain this End omitteth the chief part of his Charge and committeth High Treason against his Lord and is not fit to hold that Dignity though he perform the other two Parts never so well And that no Cause can so justly clear the Conscience whether of the People or of particular Men in resisting the Entrance of any Prince as if they judge him faulty in Religion This is neither nothing nor all which you say In Elective States the People ought not to admit any Man for King who is either cold or corrupt in Religion but if they have invested such a one with Sovereign Authority they have no Power at pleasure to remove him In Successive Kingdoms wherein the People have no Right of Election it is not lawful for Private Men upon this cause to offer to impeach eithâ—r the Entrance or Continuance of that King which the Laws of the State do present unto them not onely because it is forbidden of God for that is the least part of your regard but because disorderly Disturbance of a setled Form in Government traineth after it more both Impieties and Dangers than hath ever ensued the Imperfections of a King I will come more close to the Point in controversie and dispel those foggy Reasons which stand between your Eye and the Truth There are two Principal Parts of the Law of God the one Moral or Natural which containeth three Points Sobriety in our selves Justice towards others and generally also Reverence and Piety towards God The other is Supernatural which containeth the true Faith of the Mysteries of our Salvation and the special kind of Worship that God doth require The first God hath delivered by the Ministry of Nature to all Men the second he doth partly reveal and partly inspire to whom he pleases and therefore although most Nations have in some sort observed the one yet have they not onely erred but failed in the other During the time of the Law this peculiar Worship of God was appropriate onely to the People of Israel in a corner Kingdom of the World The flourishing Empires of the Assyrians Medes Persians Aegyptians Graecians Syrians and Romans either knew it not or held it in contempt The Israelitâ—s were almost always in subjection under these both Heathen and Tyrannical Governments and yet God by his Prophets enjoyned them Obedience affirming That the Hearts of Kings were in his Hands and that they were the Officers of his Justice the Executioners of his Decrees In the time of Grace the true Mysteries both of Worship and Belief were imparted also to other Nations but the ordinary Means to propagate the same was neither by Policy nor by Power When St. Peter offered provident Counsel as he thought unto Christ advising him to have care of himself and not to go to Hierusalem where the Iews sought to put him to death Christ did sharply reprove him for it When he did draw his Sword and therewith also drew Blood in defence of Christ he heard this Sentence They that take the sword shall perish with the sword Christ armed his Apostles onely with Fiery Tongues by force whereof they maintained the Field against all the Stratagems and Strength in the World And when Princes did not onely reject but Persecute their Doctrine they taught their Subjects obedience unto them they did both encounter and overcome them not by resisting but by persisting and enduring This course seemeth strange to the discourse of Reason to plant Religion under the Obedience of Kings not only careless thereof but cruel against it but when we consider that the Jews did commonly forsake God in prosperity and seek him in distress that the Church of Christ was more pure more zealous more entire I might also say more populous when she travelled with the Storme in her Face then when the wind was either prosperous or calme that as S. Agustine saithâ—s Want or weakness of faith is usually Chastised with the Scourges of tribulations We may learn thereby no further to examin but to admire and embrace the unsearchable wisdom and will of God Seeing therefore that this is appointed the odinary means both to establish and encrease Religion may we adventure to exchange it with humane devices Is it the Servants duty either to contradict or dispute the Masters commandement is there any more ready way to prove an Heretick then in being a curious questionist with God is he bound to yield to any man a reason of his will It is more then presumption it is plain Rebellion to oppose our reason against his order against his decree It standeth also upon common Rules That which is contrary to the nature of a thing doth not help to strengthen but destroy it It is foolish to add external stay to that which is sufficient to support it self It is senceless to attempt that by force which no force is able to effect That which hath a proper Rule must not be directed by any other And this was both the Profession and practice of the antient Fathers of the Church as I have declared before whereto I will here add that which S. Ambrose saith Let every man bear it patiently if it be not extorted from the Emperor which he would be loath the Emperor should extort from him And lest they might be interpreted not to mean obedience as well to succession as to present Power they alledge that which the Captive Jews of Babylon did write to the tributary Jews which were at Ierusalem to pray for the life not only of Nebuchodonosor the King of Babylon but also of Baltasar his Son the next Successor to his Estate But in latter times Innocentius hath taught and is also seconded by Castrensis that love is a just cause to move armes for matters of Religion Under which pretence divers men have pursued their own private purposes and ends Guicciardine writeth that Firdinand who was called the catholick did cover all his covetous and ambitious desires with the honest and holy vail of religion the like doth Iovius report of Charles V. Emperour Paulus Emilius writeth thus of all every man professeth his war to be holy every man termeth his enemies impious sanctity and piety is
affirmeth that they are cherished by God Your self do shew out of Aristotle Seneca Plutarch S. Hierome S. Chrysostome and S. Peter that Monarchy is the most exeellent and perfect Government most resembling the Government of God and most agreeable unto Nature But what do you mean to acknowledge all this and yet to deny that Monarchy is natural do you take it to be above Nature or how else is it most excellent and perfect how is it most agreeable to Nature and yet not natural can any Action be most agreeable to Justice and yet not just I know not by what stratagem or cunning crank of the Schools you can be made agreable to your self But now if we consider the general custom of all people we shall find that all the antient Nations in whom the Laws of Nature were least corrupt had no other Government as the Assyrians Medes Persans Parthians Indians Scythians Sirians Phaenicians Arabians Aegyptians Africans Numidians Mauritanians Britans Celtes Gaules Latines Hetruscanes Sicilians Athenians Lacaedemonians Corinthians Achaeans Sicyonians Candians and in one word all Tullie saith it is certain that all antient Nations were under Kings with whâ—ch opinion Salust consenteth and Iustine also where he saith the Empire of Nations at the first was in the Hands of Kings And when the People of Israel desired a King they alledged that all other Nations were governed by Kings The Athenians were the first as Plinie affirmeth who set up the Government of many whose example certain other Towns of Greece did follow rather blinded by ambition then led by Judgment Among these if the highest Authority were in the least part of the Citizens it was called Aristocracy if in the most or in all it was termed Democracy wherein you confess that neither they did nor could any long time continue but after many Tumults Seditions Mutinies Outrages Injusticies banding of factions and inundations of blood they were in the end either dissolved or vanquished and reduced again under Government of one The state of Rome began under Kings it attained the highest pitch both of Glory and Greatness under Emperors in the middle time wherein it never inâ—oyed x. years together free from sedition Polybius saith that it was mixed the Consuls representing a Monarchy the Senate an Aristrocacy and the common People a Democracy which opinion was likewise embraced by Dionysius Halicarnasseus Cicero Cantarine and others But many do hold that the State of Rome at that time was popular which seemeth to be confirmed by the famous Lawyer and Counseller Vlpian where he saith that the People did grant all their Power and Authority to the Prince Whatsoever it was in show in very deed it was always governed by some one principal Man Livie writeth of Scipio that under his shadow the City was protected and that his looks were in stead of Laws and likewise of Papirius cursor that he sustained the Roman affairs So said Thucidides that Athens was in appearance popular but Aristides was the true Monarch thereof and Plutarch also affirmeth that Pelopidas and Epaminondas were no less then Lords of the popular State of Thebes but after the death of these Men both the States of Athens and Thebes floated in Tumults as the same Author observeth like a ship in a Tempest without a Pilot. So did Peter Sodarine â—onfalonier of Florence give forth that the title of popularity was used as a mask to shadow the Tyranny of Laurence Medices but florence did never so flourish both in honor wealth and quiet as under that Tyranny Also in actions of weight in great dangers and necessities the Romans had recourse to one absolute and supreme Commander which Livie calleth the highest refuge whose Authority as the Romans did most reverently respect so was it many times fearful to their Enemies Of the first Livie saith the Dâ—ctators edict was always observed as an Oracle of the second so soon as a Dictator was created such a Terror came upon the Enemies that they departed presently from the walls Likewise in cases of extremity the Lacedemonians had their high Governor whom they called Harmostes the Thessalonians had their Archos and the Mytileans also their great Aezymnetes Lastly Tacitus reporteth that certain wise men discoursing of the like of Augustus after his death affirmed rightly that there was no other mean to appease the discords of the state but by reducing it under the Government of one Let us now take a view of our present age In all Asia from whence Tully saith civility did first spread into other parts of the World no Government is in use but by a Monarch as appeareth by the Tartarians Turks Persians Indians Chinans and Catajans no other Government is found to be founded in all the Countries of Affrick in America also and all the west parts of the World no other is yet discovered Europe only upon either declining or change of the Empire a few Towns in Germany and Italy did revive again the Government of many some are already returned to a Monarchy and the residue in their time will do the like even as all others have done which have been before them What then shall we say of this so antient so continual so general consent of all Nations what can we say but conclude with Tertullian these testimonies the more true the more simple the more simple the more common the more common the more natural the more natural the more divine But because ambition is a most fiery affection and carrieth men blindfold into headlong hopes whereby many do aspire to bear rule neither they good nor with any good either means or end the Custom or Law of Nations hath by two Reigns endeavored to keep in this raging desire by succession and by election And yet again because election is most often if not always entangled with many inconveniences as first for that the outragies during the vacancy are many and great every one that is either grieved or in want assuming free power both for revenge and spoile Secondly for that the bouldest winneth the garland more often than the best because the favor of the People doth always tast more of affection than of judgment Thirdly for that they who do not leave their state to their posterity will dissipate the demain and work out of it either profit or friends for so we see that the empire of Germany is pluckt bare of her fairest feathers Fourthly for that occasions of war are hereby ministred and that either when one taketh his repulse for indignity upon which ground Francis the first King of France could never be driven out of practise against Charles the 5. emperor or else when by means of factions many are elected as it happenâ—d in Almaine when Lewes of Baviâ—r and Albert of Austria were elected Emperors whereupon eight years war between them did ensue and as it often happened in the Empire of Rome when one Emperor was chosen by the Senate and another
World You close your conclusion with this conceit that the word natural Prince or natural Successor is to be understood of one who is born within the same Realm and that it is ridiculous to take it as though any Prince had natural Interest to succeed But what construction will you then make of that which Herodian delivereth in the speech of Commodus the Son of Marcus Now hath fortune given me unto you for Prince in his stead not drawn into the state such as they were who were before me nor as one that glorieth in the purchase of the Empire for I only am born unto you and brought up in the Court never swathed in private Cloaths but so soon as I was born the imperial purpure did receive me and the Sun beheld me at once both a Man and a Prince Consider these things and honor your Prince by right who is not given but born vnto you Girard goeth further in writing of Charles the Simple that he was King before he was born Say therefore again that it is ridiculous to take the word natural Prince for one that hath right of succession inherent in him by birth and I will say that this mirth will better beseem a natural indeed then any man that is wise But let us now consider the further passage of your discourse both how you are able to fortifie this foundation and what building it is able to bare TO THE SECOND CHAPTER which is intituled Of the particular Form of Monarchies and Kingdoms and the different Laws whereby they are to be obtained holden and governed in divers Countries according as each Common-wealth hath chosen and established IN this chapter you spend much speech in praising a monarchie and preferring it before the Government of manie which you do to no other end but to insinuate your self either into credit or advantage to draw it down even as Ioab presented Amasa with a kind Kiss to win thereby opportunity to stab him For in the end you fetch about that because a Prince is subject as other men not only to errours in Judgment but also to passionate affections in his will it was necessary that as the common wealth hath given that great power unto him so it should assigne him helps for managing the same And that a Prince reciveth his authority from the people you prove a little before for that Saint Peter termeth Kings Humane creatures which you interpret to be a thing created by man because by mans free choise both this form of government is erected and the same also laid upon some particular person I know not in what sort to deal with you concerning this interpretation Shall I labour to impugne it by arguments Why there is no man that wanteth not either judgment or sincerity but upon both the natural and usual sense of the words he will presently acknowledg it to be false Shall I go about either to laugh or to rail you from your errour as Cicero in the like case perswaded to do But this would be agreeable neither to the stayedness of our years nor the gravity of our professions I am now advised what to do I will appeal as Machetes did before Philip of Macedon from your self asleep to your self awake from your self distempered by affection to your self returned to sobriety of sense Do you think then in true earnest that a human creature is a thing created by man or rather that every man is a humane creature Is a brutish creature to be raken for a thing created by a beast Spiritual Angelical or any other adjunct unto creature what reference hath it to the Author of Creation And if it were so then should all creatures be called divine because they were created by God to whom only it is proper to create and in this very point Saint Paul saith that all authority is the ordinance and institution of God Neither needeth it to trouble us that Saint Peter should so generally injoine us to be obedient to all men no more than it troubled the Apostles when Christ commanded them to preach to all creatures according to which commission St. Paul did testifie that the Gospel had been preached to every creature under Heaven but St. Peter doth specifie his general speech and restrain his meaning to Kings and Governors in which sence St. Ambrose citeth this place as it followeth Be subject to your Lords whether it be to the King as to the most excellent c. This interpretation not onely not relieving you but discovering very plainly either the weakness or corruption of your judgment it resteth upon your bare word that Kings have received their first Authority from the people which although I could deny with as great both countenance and facility as you affirm yet will I further charge upon you with strength of proof Presently after the inundation of the world we find no mention of politick Government but onely of oeconomical according as men were sorted in families for so Moses hath written that of the progeny of Iapheth the Isles of the Gentiles were divided after their families The first who established Government over many families was Nimrod the Son of Cush accounted by St. Chrysostome the first King which Authority he did not obtain by favour and election of any people but by plain purchase of his power Hereupon Moses calleth him a mighty Hunter which is a form of speech among the Hebrews whereby they signifie a spoiler or oppresser And this doth also appear by the etymology of his name for Nimrod signifieth a Rebel a Transgressour and as some interpret it a terrible Lord And names were not imposed in ancient times by chance or at adventure as Plato one of Natures chief Secretaries and among the Latin Writers Aul. Gellius do affirm Many hold opinion that this Nimrod was the same whom the Grecians call Ninus which seemeth to be confirmed by that which Moses saith that he did build the City of Ninive Of this Ninus Iustine writeth that he was the first who held that which he did subdue others satisfied with Victory aspired not to bear Rule Nimrod founded the Empire of the Assyrians which continued by Succession in his posterity until it was violently drawn from Sardanapalus to the Medes From them also Cyrus by subversion of Astyages did transport it to the Persians and from them again the Grecians did wrest it by Conquest After the death of Alexander his Captains without any consent of the people made partition of the Empire among them whose successors were afterwards subdued by the Armies and Arms of Rome And this Empire being the greatest that ever the Earth did bear was in the end also violently distracted by divers several either Conquests or Revolts Leo Afer writeth that it is not a hundred years since the people of Gaoga in Africk had neither King nor Lord until one observed the greatness and Majesty
were both declared and pursued by Decree of the State for publick Enemies of whom not any one either died a natural death or lived three years after it was further decreed that the Court where he was slain should be stopped up that the Ides of March should be called parricidium and that the Senate should never be assembled upon that day You say that Augustus was preferred in his place that is four and all within the compass of six Lines Augustus was never chosen Dictator Suetonius writeth that he entreated the people upon his knee not to charge him with that Office But Augustus Antonius and Lepidus did first knit in Arms by the name of Triumviri to revenge the death of Iulius Caesar whereupon a long cruel and doubtful War was set up which continued the space of twenty years first between these three and the Murtherers of Caesar then between Lepidus and the other two lastly between Augustus and Antonius and this was the sweet success of the murther of Caesar. Augustus after his Victory was made perpetual Tribune as Suetonius hath written Dio saith that he was freed from the power of the Laws as Pompey also had been before him Tacitus addeth that the people having their hearts broken with broils permitted him to rise into rule and to draw by degrees the whole Authority of the State into his hands And so it seemeth that the Royal Law was not yet established by which the people gave over their power in Government Whereupon some make good the Sentence which the Senate gave against Nero because the Soveraignty was not then by any express Act setled in the Emperour But where you bring the Succession of Vespasian as a good success of this Sentence against Nero it is a wild and witless untruth Galba succeeded next after Nero who was slain in a sedition raised by Otho Otho again was overcome in field by Vitellius whereupon he slew himself Lastly Vitellius was overthrown and slain by the Captains of Vespasian who was the fourth Emperour after Nero These Intestine Wars these open Battles fought to the full this slaughter of Emperours which you term Interludes were the immediate success after the death of Nero. You Fiends of Hell whose Voices are Lightning and Thunder whose breathing is nothing but Sword Fire Rages and Rebellions the encountring of Armies the butchery of millions of men the Massacre of Princes you account Interludes These are your pleasures these your recreations I hope all Christian-Commonwealths will bear an eye over your inclination and keep out both your persons and perswasions from turning their State into an open Stage for the acting of these Interludes You continue your base boldness in affiring that the Senate procured the death of Domitian that they requested the Souldiers to kill Heliogabalus that they invited Constantine to come and do justice upon Maxentius this broken kind of disguising is familiar unto you to make such violences as have often prevailed against excellent Princes to seem to be the act of the whole State And whereas you bring the succession of Alexander Severus for a good success of the murther of Heliogabalus being the rarest Prince you say that ever the Romans had you might have alleadged any Author in proof thereof better than Herodian who writeth of him in this manner Alexander did beaâ— the name and Ensigns of the Empire but the administration of Affairs and government of the State did rest upon women And further he writeth that by his slackness and cowardise the Roman Army was defeated by the Persians and finally that for his want of courage he was slain by his own Souldiers By this we may see that you go blindfold being so far from caring that many times you scarce know what you write Your markable Example as you term it of the change of the Empire from the West to the East from Constantine the sixth to Charles King of France doth mark out nothing more unto us than your soundred judgment The question is not what one forrain Prince may do against another but what Subjects may do against their Soveraign This is the point of controversie here you must close and not traverse about in discourses impertinent The change of the Kingdom of France from Childeric to Pepin your own Author Girard affirmeth to be both an ambitious and fraudulent usurpation wherein Pepin used the reverence of Religion as a Mantle to cover his Impiety and Rebellion The matters which he objected against Childerick were two First his insufficiency the ordinary pretence of most Rebellions but Girard saith that the ancient custom of the French was to love and honour their Kings whether sufficient or unable worthy or weak and that the name of King was esteemed sacred by whomsoever it was born Secondly he objected that his Subjects were conditionally sworn unto him and this also Girard writeth to be a forced and cautelous interpretation violently streining the words of their Oath to his advantage and indeed if the Oath of the people had been conditional what needed they to procure a Dispensation for the same This was the first act saith he whereby the Popes took occasion to set in their foot of Authority for transporting of Kingdoms from one Race to another which growing to strength hath filled all Christian Countries with confusion and tumult Likewise the change of that Kingdom from the Line of Pepin to the Line of Capet was a meer violence and intrusion and so it was acknowledged by Endes Earl of Paris the first of that Family who did usurp and for that cause he was constrained after two years reign to quit the Crown and to give place unto Charles the lawful Heir And when Robert brother unto Endes did enter into armâ— to recover that which his Brother once held he was beaten down and slain by the faithful Subjects of King Charles Hugh the son of Robert nourished this ambition but Hugh Capet his son with better both opportunity and success but no better right did accomplish the Enterprise For Girard calleth him an Usurper and Charles Duke of Lâ—â—rain the true Heir to the Crown Betweeâ— these two as in all usurpations it is usual War was raised but by the unsearchable Judgment of God the Duke of Orleans was cast to the ground And there is little doubt but if he had prevailed Orleans had beeâ— at this day a Member of the Crown of France The like answer may be given to your Example of Suintilla and this beside that the Kingdom of the Goths in Spain was not theâ— setled in succession and chiefly during the Reign of Victeric Gundemir Sisebuth Suintilla Sicenand Cinthilla and Tulca The History of Alphonso another of your Examples standeth thus Alphonso had a son call'd Ferdinand who died during the life of his father and left two young sons behind him After the death of Ferdinand his younger Brother Sancho practised with D. Lope Diaz de
the Prince hereby affected the person is both tyed and touched in honour the authority ceaseth not if performances do fail Of this sort was that which you report of Trajan who in delivering the Sword to his Governors would say If I reign justly then use it for me if otherwise then use it against me But where you adde that these are the very same words in effect which Princes do use at their Coronations pardon me for it is fit I should be moved you will find it to be a very base lye Of this nature was that also which the same Trajan did to encourage his Subjects to do the like in taking an Oath to observe the Laws which Pliny the younger did account so strange as the like before had not been seen But afterward Theodoric did follow that fact whereupon Cassiodorus saith Ecce Trajani nostri clarum seculis reparamus exemplum jurat vobis per quem juratis We repair the famous example of Trajan he sweareth to you by whom you swear So when King Henry the Fifth was accepted for Successor to the Crown of France he made promise to maintain the Parliament in the liberties thereof And likewise divers Princes do give their faith to maintain the priviledges of the Church and not to change the Laws of the Realm which Oath is interpreted by Baldus Panormitane and Alexander to extend no further than when the Laws shall be both profitable and just because Justice and the common benefit of Subjects is the principal point both of the Oath and Duty of a Prince whereto all other clauses must be referred And now to your Examples First because in all the rank of the Hebrew Kings you cannot find either Condition or Oath not in the ancient Empires and Kingdoms of the world not usually in the flourishing time of the Roman State both under Heathen and Christian Emperours because these times are too pure for your purpose you fumble forth a dull Conjecture That forsomuch as the first Kings were elected by the People it is like that they did it upon conditions and assurances for themselves That the first Kings received not their Authority from the people I have manifested before and yet your inference hereupon is no other than if you should sue in some Court for a Legacy alleadging nothing for your intent but that it is like the Testator should leave you something in which case it is like I suppose that your Plea would be answered with a silent scorn After a few loose Speeches which no man would stoop to gather together you bring in the example of Anastasius the first Emperour of Constantinople of whom the Patriarch Euphemius required before his Coronation a Confession of the Faith in writing wherein he should promise to innovate nothing And further he promised to take away certain Oppressions and to give Offices without money Let us take things as they are and not speak upon idle imagination but agreeable to sence What either Condition or Restraint do you find in these words Condition they do not form because in case of failance they do not make the Authority void neither do they make Restraint because they contain no point whereunto the Law of God did not restrain him All this he was bound to perform without an Oath and if he were a thousand times sworn he was no more but bound to perform it even as if a Father should give his word to cloath and feed his Child or the Husband to love his Wife or any man to discharge that duty which God and Nature doth require It is true that Anastasius was both a wicked man and justly punished by God for the breach of his Faith but his Subjects did never challenge to be free therefore from their Allegiance The same Answer may be given to the Promise which Michael the first gave to Nicephorus the Patriarch That he would not violate the Ordinances of the Church nor embrue his hands with innocent bloud especially if you take the word Ordinances for matters necessary to be believed but if you take it in a larger sence then have I also declared in the beginning of this Chapter how far the Promise doth extend Your next Example is of the Empire of Almain from whence all that you object doth fall within this circle After the death of Charles the Great the Empire was held by Right of Succession until his Line was determined in Conrade the First After whose death it became Elective first in Henry Duke of Saxony then in Otho his son and afterwards in the rest from whom notwithstanding no other promise was wrested but the discharge of that duty which they were informed or rather threatned that God would severely exact at their hands But as in all Elective States it usually happeneth at every new change and choice the Emperour was deplumed of some of his Feathers until in the end he was made naked of Authority the Princes having drawn all power to themselves So by degrees the Empire was changed from a Monarchy to a pure Aristocracy the Emperour bearing the Title thereof but the Majesty and Puissance remaining in the States During which weakness of the Emperour some points were added to his Oath which seemed to derogate from the soveraignty of his estate But what is this to those Princes who have retained their dignity without any diminution either of Authority or of Honour The like may be said of Polonia which not many hundred years since was erected into a Kingdom and although the States did challenge therein a right of Election yet did it always pass according to propinquity of bloud and was esteemed a soveraign Monarchy until after the death of Casimire the Great when Lodovicus his Nephew King of Hungary rather greedy than desirous to be King also of Polonia did much abase the Majesty thereof Yet falling afterward into the Line of Iagello who married one of the daughters of Lodowiek it recovered the ancient both dignity and strength But when that Line also failed in Sigismond Augustus the last Male of that Family the States elected Henry Duke of Anjou for their King with this clause irritant That if he did violate any point of his Oath the people should owe him no Allegiance But whereas you report this as the usual Oath of the Kings of Polonia you deserve to hear the plainest term of untruth In the Kingdom of Spain you distinguish two times one before the Conquest thereof by the Moors the other after it was recovered again by the Christians I acknowledge a difference in these two times for that in the one the Right of the Kingdom was Elective in the other it hath always remained Successive insomuch as Peter Belluga a diligent Writer of the Rights of Arragon doth affirm that the people have no power in electâ—on of the King except in case the Line should fail Concerning the matter in controversie you affirm that the Kings did swear
the same points in effect which before have been mentioned This we must take upon your forfeited Faith for you alleadge no form of Oath onely you write that the fourth National Council of Toledo with all humility convenient did require that the present King and all other that should follow would be meek and moderate towards their Subjects and govern them with Justice and not give sentence in Causes capital without assistance declaring further that if any of them should exercise cruel and proud Authority that they were condemned by Christ with the sentence of Excommunication and separated to everlasting Judgment But what pang hath possessed your dreaming brains to term this by a marginal Note Conditions of reigning in Spain being no other than a reverent and grave admonition of the duty of a King with a fearful declaration of the Judgment of God against wicked Princes And that which was afterward decreed in the sixth Council of Toledo That the King should swear not to suffer any man to break the Catholick Faith because it is a principal point of his duty his Estate was not thereby made conditional The rest of this passage you fill up with froath of the antiquated Law of Don Pelayo prescribing a form of inaugurating the Kings of Spain whereof there is not one point either now in use or pertaining to the purpose So miserable is your case that you can write nothing therein but that which is either impertinent or untrue For France your first Example is taken from the Coronation of Philip the First wherein you note that King Henry his Father requested the people to swear Obedience to his son inferring thereby that a Coronation requireth a new Consent which includeth a certain Election of the Subjects But this is so light that the least breath is sufficient to disperse it Philip was crowned King during the life of his Father which action as it was not ordinary so was it of such both difficulty and weight that it could not be effected without assembly and consent of the States The Oath which he made is in this form extant in the Library of Rheimes I do promise before God and his Saints that I will conserve to every one committed unto me Canonical Priviledge and due Law and Iustice and will defend them by the help of God so much as shall lie in my power as a King by right ought to do within his Realm to every Bishop and to the Church committed to him and further to the People committed to my charge I will grant by my authority the dispensation of Laws according to right Adde to this a more ancient form of the Oath of those Kings which it seemeth you have not seen I swear in the Name of God Almighty and promise to govern well and duly the Subjects committed to my charge and to do with all my Power Iudgement Iustice and Mercy Adde also the Oath which you alleadge of Philip the Second surnamed Augustus To maintain all Canonical Priviledges Law and Iustice due to every man to the uttermost of his power to defend his Subjects as a good King is bound to do to procure that they be kept in the union of the Church to defend them from all Excess Rapine Extortion and Iniquity to take order that Iustice be kept with equity and mercy and to endeavour to expel Hereticks What doth all this rise unto but a Princely promise to discharge honourably and truly those points of duty which the Laws of God did lay upon them What other Conditions or Restraints are imposed What other Contract is hereby made Where are the Protestations which in the end of the last Chapter you promised to shew that if the Prince do fail in his Promise the Subjects are free from their Allegiance What Clause do you find sounding to that sence But you little regard any thing that you say you easily remember to forget your word Well then we must put these your vain Speeches into the reckoning of Money accounted but not received and seeing you cannot shew us that the Kings of France and of Spain are tyed to any Condition whereto the Law of God doth not bind them I will not vary from the judgment of Ordradus in affirming them to be absolute Kings I have pressed this point the rather in this place because you write that most Neighbour-Nations have taken the form of anointing and crowning their Kings from the ancient custom of France although the substance be deduced from the first Kings of the Hebrews as appeareth by the anointing of King Saul whereof David you say made great account notwithstanding that Saul had been rejected by God and that himself had lawfully born Arms against him Out Atheist you would be dawbed with Dung and have the most vile filth of your Stews cast in your face Did David bear Arms against his anointed King did he ever lift up his eye-lids against him did he ever so much as defend himself otherwise than by flight It is certain that Shemei did not half so cruelly either curse or revile this holy man who did so much both by speech and action detest this fact that he would rather have endured ten thousand deaths than to have defiled his Soul with so damnable a thought What then shall we say unto you who to set up Sedition and Tumult abuse all divine and humane Writings in whatsoever you believe will advance your purpose who spend some speech of respect unto Kings for allurement onely to draw us more deep into your deceit Shall we give any further ear to your Doctrine both blasphemous and bloudy We will hear you to the end and I deceive my self but your own tale shall in any moderate judgment condemn the authority of your opinions for ever Let us come then to your last Example which is neither the last nor the least whereat you level and that is of England which of all other Kingdoms you say hath most particularly taken this Ceremony of Sacring and Anointing from France Well let the Ceremony be taken from whence you please if the Oath be no other than you do specifie To observe peace honour and Reverence unto Almighty God to his Church and to the Ministers of the same to administer Law and Iustice equalâ—y to all to abrogate evil Laws and Customs and maintain good which was the Oath of King Richard the First the like whereto was that of King Iohn altered onely in the first branch To love and defend the Catholick Church If the Oath be no other I say I do not see what other Answer you need to expect but that it is onely a free Royal Promise to discharge that duty which God doth impose And this is plainly declared by the Speech which you alleadge of Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury to King Henry the Fourth Remember saith he the Oath which voluntarily you made Voluntarily he said and not necessarily it was voluntaly in Oath but necessary in