of God forget to pursue revenge For albeit King Edward his Son enjoyed both a long and prosperous Reign yet his next Successor King Richard the second was in the like violent manner imprisoned deprived and put to death I will prosecute the successive revenge which hereof also ensued being a strange matter and worthy to be rung into the ears of all Ages King Henry the Fourth by whom King Richard was deposed did exercise the chiefest Acts of his Reign in executing those who conspired with him against King Richard His Son had his Vertue well seconded by Felicity during whose Reign by means of the Wars in France the humour against him was otherwise employed and spent but his next Successor King Henry the Sixth was in the very like manner deprived and together with his young Son Edward imprisoned and put to death by King Edward the Fourth This Edward died not without suspicion of poyson and after his death his two Sons were in like manner disinherited imprisoned and murthered by their cruel Unkle the Duke of Gloucester who being both a Tyrant and Usurper was justly encountred and slain by King Henry the Seventh in the field So infallible is the Law of Justice in revenging Cruelties and Wrongs not always observing the presence of times wherein they are done but often calling them into reckoning when the Offenders retain least memory of them Likewise the deposition of King Richard the Second was a tempestuous Rage neither led nor restrained by any Rules of Reason or of State not suddenly raised and at once but by very cunning and artificial degrees But examine his actions without distempred judgment and you will not condemn him to be exceeding either insufficient or evil weigh the Imputations that were objected against him and you shall find nothing either of any truth or of great moment Hollingshead writeth that he was most unthankfully used by his Subjects for although through the frailty of his youth he demeaned himself more dissolutely than was agreeable to the Royalty of his estate yet in no Kings days the Commons were in greater wealth the Nobility more honoured and the Clergy less wronged who notwithstanding in the evil-guided strength of their Will took head against him to their own headlong-destruction afterward partly during the Reign of King Henry his next Successor whose greatest Atchievements were against his own people but more especially in succeeding times when upon occasion of this disorder more English bloud was spent than was in all the forraign Wars which had been since the Conquest Three causes are commonly insinuated by you for which a King may be deposed Tyranny Insufficiency and Impiety But what Prince could hold his State what People their Quiet assured if this your Doctrine should take place How many good Princes doth Envy brand with one of these marks What action of State can be so ordered that either blind Ignorance or set Malice will not easily strain to one of these heads Every execution of Justice every demand of Tribute or Supply shall be claimed Tyranny every infortunate Event shall be exclaimed Insufficiency every kind of Religion shall by them of another Sect be proclaimed Impiety So dangerous it is to permit this high power to a heedless and headless Multitude who measure things not by Reason and Justice but either by Opinion which commonly is partial or else by Report which usually is full of uncertainties and errours the most part doing because others do all easie to become slavish to any mans ambitious attempt So dangerous it is to open our ears to every foolish Phaeton who undertaking to guide the Chariot of the Sun will soon cast the whole Earth into combustion You proceed that King Henry the Sixth was also deposed for defects in Government Let us yield a little to you that you may be deceived a little that you may be carried by your affections How can you excuse these open untruths wherein it cannot be but the Devil hath a finger You cannot be ignorant that the onely cause which drew the Family of York into Arms against King Henry was the Title which they had unto the Crown by vertue whereof it was first enacted That Rich. Duke of York should succeed King Henry after his death but for that he made unseasonable attempts he was declared by Parliament incapable of succession and afterwards slain at the Battel of Wakefield Then Edward his Son prosecuting the enterprize and having vanquished King Henry at the Battle of St. Albans obtained possession of the State caused King Henry to be deposed and himself to be proclaimed and Crowned King Afterward he was chased out of the Realm and by Act of Parliament both deprived and disabled from the Crown Lastly he returned again and deprived King Henry both from Government and from Life It is true that some defects were objected against King Henry but this was to estrange the hearts of the people from him The main cause of the War did proceed from the right of the one party and possession of the other The contrariety of the Acts of Parliament was caused by the alternative Victories of them both Your last example is of King Richard the Third of whom you write First that although he sinned in murthering his Nephews yet after their death he was lawful King Secondly that he was deposed by the Common-wealth who called out of France Henry Earl of Richmond to put him down Philosophers say that dreams do commonly arise by a reflection of the phansie upon some subject whereof we have meditated the day before It may be that your drowsie conceit was here cast into a dream of that whereon it had dozed in all this Chapter Or at the best that you are like unto those who have so often told a lie that they perswade themselves it is ture King Edward the fourth left other children besides those that were murthered the Duke of Clarence also who was elder Brother to King Richard left Issue in life all which had precedence of right before him And as for the second point tell me I pray you by what Parliament was King Richard deposed where did the States assemble when did they send for the Earl of Richmond to put him down by what Decree by what Messengers There is no answer to be made but one and that is to confess ingenuously that you say untrue and that it is your usual manner of deceiving to impute the act of a few unto all and to make every event of Arms to be a judicial proceeding of the Common-wealth For it is manifest that the Earl of Richmond had his first strength from the King of France and that after his descent into England more by half both of the Nobility and common people did stand for King Richard than stir against him You adjoyn for a special consideration that most excellent Princes succeeded these whom you affirm to be deposed I will not extenuate the excellency of any Prince but I
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
right of Succession So have Pyrates against Merchants so have Murtherers and Thieves against true meaning Travellers And this disloyalty of the people hath moved divers Kings to cause their Sons to be crowned during their own lives because the unsetled state of succeeding Kings doth give opportunity to boldest attempts and not as you dream because admission is of more importance than succession I will examine your Examples in the Chapters following In the mean time where you write that King Henry and King Edward both called the Fourth had no better way to appease their minds at the time of their death but by founding their Title upon consent of the people the Authors which you cite do plainly charge you with unexcusable untruth King Edward never made question of his right King Henry did as some other Authors report but applied no such deceitful comfort this false skin would not then serve to cover his wound An Answer to the Seventh Chapter which beareth title How the next in Succession by propinquity of Blood have oftentimes been put back by the Commonwealth and others further off admitted in their places even in those Kingdoms where Succession prevaileth with many Examples of the Kingdom of Israel and Spain HEre you present your self very pensive to your audience as though you had so over-strained your wits with store of Examples of the next in Succession not admitted to the State that you had cracked the credit of them for ever But you are worthy of blame either for endangering or troubling your self in matters of so small advantage I have shewed before that Examples suffice not to make any proof and yet herein doth consist the greatest shew of your strength It is dangerous for men to be governed by Examples though good except they can assure themselves of the same concurrence of reasons not onely in general but in particularities of the same direction also and carriage in Counsel and lastly of the same favourable fortune but in actions which are evil the imitation is commonly worse than the example Your puffie discourse then is a heap of words without any weight you make mountains not for Mole-hills but of Moats long harvest of a small deal not of Corn but of Cockle and as one said at the shearing of Hogs great cry for a little and that not very fine Wool Yea but of necessity something you must say yea but this something is no more than nothing You suppose that either your opinion will be accepted more for authority of your Person than weight of your Proofs or else that any words will slide easily into the minds of those who are lulled in the humour of the same inclination because partiality will not suffer men to discern truth being easily beguiled in things they desire Besides whatsoever countenance you carry that all your Examples are free from exception yet if you had cast out those which are impertinent or unjust or else untrue you could not have been overcharged with the rest Your first example that none of the Children of Saul did succeed him in the Crown is altogether impertinent because by particular and express appointment of God the Kingdom was broken from his posterity We acknowledge that God is the onely superiour Judge of Supream Kings having absolute both Right and Power to dispose and transpose their Estates as he please Neither must we examine his actions by any course of Law because his Will is above all Law He hath enjoyned the people to be obedient to their Kings he hath not made them equal in authority to himself And whereas out of this example you deduce that the fault of the father may prejudicate the sons right although he had no part in the fault to speak moderately of you your judgement is either deceitful or weak God in his high Justice doth punish indeed the sins of Parents upon their Posterity but for the ordinary course of Humane Justice he hath given a Law that the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father The equity whereof is regularly followed both by the Civil and Canon Law and by the Interpreters of them both Your second example is of King Solomon who succeeded in the State of David his Father notwithstanding he was his youngest Son But this example in many respects falleth not within the compass of your case First because he was not appointed Successour by the people and we speak what the people may do to direct Succession Secondly for that the Kingdom was not then stablished in Succession Lastly for that the action was led by two Prophets David and Nathan according to the express choise and direction of God whereby it is no rule for ordinary right Here many points do challenge you of indiscretion â—â— the least You write that David made a promise to Bathsheba in his youth That Solomon should succeed in his estate but if you had considered at what years Solomon began to Reign you should have found that David could not make any such promise but he must be a youth about threescore years of age You write also that David adored his Son Solomon from his bed but the words wherewith David worshipped were these Blessed be the Lord God of Israel who hath made one to sit on my Throne this day even in my sight whereby it is evident that David adored God and not his Son This I note rather for observation of the loosness of your Judgment than for any thing it maketh to the purpose You are so accustomed to untruths that you fall into them without either advantage or end The like answer may be given to your example of Rehoboam because God declared his sentence therein by two Prophets Ahijah Shemaiah But for that the ten Tribes revolted from Rehoboam upon discontentment at his rough answer and with dispite against David and his House and not in obedience to Gods Decree we cannot excuse them from offence for which it turned to their destruction For hereupon first they were separated both from the place and manner of the true Worship of God then there arose unappeasable War between them and the Tribe of Iudah then insolencies following disorders they were never long time free from Conspiracies Divisions and Tumults by which means being drained both of Wealth and Inhabitants and reduced to a naked weakness they were lastly carried captive into divers far Countries and strangers were sent to inhabit their Cities I must here also observe a few of your interpretations wherein your boldness is not limited with any bounds It is to be noted you say that before Rehoboam went to Shechem to be admitted by the people he was not accounted true King I desire therefore that you would satisfie us in these places following Before Rehoboam went to Shechem the Scripture saith that Solomon died was buried and Rehoboam his Son reigned in his stead Again after the defection of
be esteemed the Law of Nature But this is to be taken not as though all Nations have at any time observed one usage alike it is not necessary saith Baldus that the word all should carry so large a sence neither hath it ever been brought into knowledge what customs all Nations have held in use And it is most certain that there is not one point or precept of the Law of Nature but by reason partly of the weakness partly of the corruption which the fall of Adam did fasten in his posterity some people have at all times either neglected or else depraved some being so dull as they could not perceive others so malicious as they would deny that which nature did lay before them Yea such is either the weakness or wilfulness of our judgment that they who are not only admitted but admired for wise men do many times disagree in determining what is most agreeable to nature much less may we either expect or imagine that all Nations so different so distant never so much as now and yet not now fully discovered should jump in one Judgment for uniform observation of any custom neither is that no natural Right as Zenophon noteth which many daily do transgress And therefore Donellus did unjustly reject the discription which Gaius gave of the Law of Nations by taking the word all in the amplest sence S. Ambrose and S. Hierom did in this sort declare it that we are to take that for a Decree of Nations which successively and at times hath been observed by all But as for any one time as it is to be judged the decree or custom of a whole City which hath passed by consent of the most part although all have not allowed and some perhaps have opposed against it so is it to be esteemed the Law of Nations the common Law of the whole World which most Nations in the World are found to imbrace And because Government was not from the beginning but induced as a consequence of the primary Precept of Nature to maintain human Society therefore whensoever we speak of natural Government we are intended to mean the secondary Law of Nature which is the received custom successively of all and always of most Nations in the World Out of this we may gather that three rules do chiefly lead us to the Knowledge of this Law The first is that which Cicero in the like giveth to appeal vnto sence because there is no man but by the light of nature hath some sence of that which nature doth allow S. Augustine saith I know not by what conscience we feel these things and likewise Tertullian Nature hath tainted all Evil either with fear or shame Whereto agreeth that which S. Ambrose saith although they deny it they cannot but shew some tokens of shame Hereupon the authors of the civil Law do reject that for unjust which is not demanded withouâ— shew of shame For as Cassiodorus writeth God hath given all men such a sence of justice that they who know not the Laws cannot but acknowledge the reason of truth But because this light of nature in many men is exceeding dim the next rule is to observe what hath been allowed by those who are of greatest both wisdom and integrity in whom Nature doth shew her self most clear For as Aristotle saith that is probable which proved men do approve Among these the first place pertaineth unto them who by inspiration of God have compiled the Books of holy Scripture to whom as attendants we may adjoyn the antient Counsels and Fathers of the Church The next place is to be given to the Authors of the civil Law whose Judgment hath been these many hundred Years admired by many approved by all and is at this day accepted for Law almost in all states of the Christian common-wealth To these also we may adjoyn as attendants their interpreters of most approved note The third place is due to Philosophers Historigraphers Orators and the like who have not unprofitably endeavored to free nature of two clouds wherewith she is often overcast gross ignorance and subtil Error But because natural reason as Alciate affirmeth doth sometimes vary according to the capacity of particular men even as the Sun being in it self always the same giveth neither heat nor light to all alike the third rule followeth to observe the common Use of all Nations which Cicero calleth the voice of Nature because as Aristotle hath written it is not done by chance which every where is done Plato saith this shall be the proof hereof that no man doth otherwise speak likewise Baldus I dare not disallow that which the World alloweth And in this common Law or Custom of the World three circumstances are to be considered antiquity continuance and generality Now when your first position is so clearly true that you do but guild Gold in labouring to prove it for man is not only sociable by nature but as Aristotle affirmeth more sociable than any other living creature These notorious points the more we prove the more we obscure Your second is also true for as Tully saith without Empire neither House nor City nor Nation nor Mankind can stand nor the Nature of all things nor in a word the World it self Whereto agreeth that of Aristotle Government is both necessary and also profitable But whereas you bring in proof hereof that there was never People found either in antient Time or of late Discovery which had not some Magistrate to govern them neither is it necessary and yet false It is not necessary to have so large a consent of Nations as I have declared before and it is false that in all Times and Nations there have been Magistrates After the deluge Magistrates were not known until Kings did arise as hereafter it shall appear The Jews were often without either Magistrates or Government Whereupon in certain places of the Book of Judges it is thus written In those days there was no King in Israel but what seemed right to every man that did he Sometimes Democratical Government doth draw to a pure Anarchie and so doth the interregnum of elective principalities Leo Afer reporteth that in Guzala a country of Africk the people have neither King nor form of Government but upon days of mart they elect a Captain to secure their traffick The same Author delivereth that the inhabitants of the Mountain Magnan upon the frontiers of Fez have no form of common wealth but do stay travellers unpartial judges to decide their controversies Leo himself was arrested to be their judge and when he had spent many days in determining their debates he was in the end presented with hens ducks geese and other of their country commodities which served only to discharge his host And if this your reason should be of force then were not sociability natural because many men have made choice to live alone But how then
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
in popular Governmens there is nothing but sedition trouble tumults outrages and injustices upon every light occasion and then we shall perceive first that you want the art of a wise deceiver not to be entangled in your tale Secondly that this is mere poyson which the Devil hath dropt out of your Pen to infect Christian Countries with disobedience and disorder In a word to the contrary of this your impudent untruth our Laws do acknowledge supreme authority in the Prince within the Realm and Dominions of England neither can Subjects bear themselves either superiour or equal to their Soveraign or attempt violence either against his person or estate but as well the Civil Law as the particular Laws and Customs of all Countries do adjudge it high and hainous Treason I will speak now without passion What reason have we to accept your idle talk for a kind of authority against the Judgment and Laws of most Nations in the world You proceed that the power of a Prince is given to him by the Commonwealth with such conditions and exceptions as if the same be not kept the people stand free That the Prince receiveth his power under plain conditions you go about to prove afterward now you hold on that in all mutual contracts if one side recede from promise the other remaineth not obliged And this you prove by two Rules of the Law The first is He doth in vain require promise to be kept of another man to whom he refuseth to perform that which he promised The other is A man is not bound to perform his Oath if on the other part that be not performed in respect whereof he did swear Poor fellow had you been as conversant in the light of Law and clear course of Justice as you are in the smoak and dust of some corner of a Colledge you would never have concluded so generally so confidently upon any of the Rules of Law which are subject for the most part unto many exceptions Alexander Felinus do assign five fallencies unto these Rules Socinus giveth the contrary Rule To him that breaketh his faith or oath faith ought to be kept and then restraineth it with seven limitations But all affirm that in those offices which are mutual between any persons by the Law of Nature or of God as between the Father and the Child the Husband and the Wife the Master and Servant the Prince and the Subject although the same be further assured by Promise or by Oath the breach of duty in the one is no discharge unto the other And therefore if the Father performeth not his duty towards his Children they are not thereby acquitted both of the obedience and care which God and Nature exacteth of them howsoever Solon in his Laws discharged Children from nourishing their Parents if they did not train them in some Trade whereby they might acquire their living Much less are Subjects exempted from Obedience if the Prince either erre or be defective in Government because the like respect is not due unto Parents as unto Princes as I have somewhat touched before insomuch as a Son that beareth authority hath right both to command and compel the Father This was declared among the Romans by that which Plutarch Livie Valerius and Gellius do report of Q. Fabius to whom being Consul when Fabius Maximus his Father who had been Consul the year before did approach sitting upon his Horse the Son commanded him by a Sergeant to alight the Father not onely obeyed but highly commended both the Courage and Judgment of his Son in maintaining the Majesty which he did bear and in preferring a publick both Duty and Authority before private Upon those examples Paulus the Lawyer did write that publick discipline was in higher estimation among the Roman Parents than the love of Children After an impertinent discourse that upon divers considerations an Oath ought not to be performed you annex another cause wherefore Subjects may withdraw their Allegeance and that is when it should turn to the notable damage of the Commonwealth And both these you affirm to be touched in the deprivation of Childerick King of France But I regard not what was touched in the deprivation of Childeric I have answered to that in the Chapter next before I require either Arguments or Authority of more tough temper Well then let us turn back the leaf and there we shall find a Rule of the Law because by Rules only you will only beat down Rule In evil promises it is not expedient to keep faith Which is also confirmed by a sentence of Isidâ—rus In evil promises break your word in a dishonest oath change your purpose Well fare your wits good soul Do you account the promise of obedience evil not so I suppose you will say but it turneth to be evil when it turneth to the notable detriment of the Commonwealth It is one of your peculiar gifts the further you go the more impious you declare your self For if you take the word evil in no higher sence than for detriment and dammage it would follow upon your rule that a man were no further tied to his promise than the performance thereof were advantageable unto him You would enforce also that if the Father doth dissipate his patrimonial Estate and run a course to ruine his Family the Children and the Wife may thereupon disavow their duties But if we take a true touch of this point we shall find that the vices of any Prince are not sufficient of themselves to overthrow a State except thereupon Rebellions be raised which will draw all things into confusion For there is no Prince which either hath lived or can almost be imagined to live in so little sence of humanity but generally he both favoureth and maintaineth some order of Justice only against particular persons some of them have violently been carried by the tempest of their passion whereby notwithstanding the inordinate desires of one man cannot possibly reach to the ruine of all So saith Suetonius that under Domitian the provinces were well governed only certain private men at Rome felt the evil of his cruelty and other vices But when the people do break into tumult then all course of Justice is stopped then is either assistance made or resistance weakned for forain Invasion then is every one raised into hope who cannot fly but with other mens Feathers then as when a fierce Horse hath cast his Rider the Reins are loosed to those insolencies which a dissolute people nothing restrained either by honesty or â—â—ar do usually commit For as it is the nature of men when they come ouâ— of one extremity wherein they have been holden by force to run with a swift course into another without staying in the midst so the people breaking out of Tyranny if they be not hold back will run headlong into unbridled liberty and the harder