attempts So dangerous it is upon any pretence to put by the next in Succession to the Crown This Henry the first left but one Daughter and by her a young Son named Henry to whom he appointed the Succession of the Realm and took an Oath of all the Bishops and likewise of the Nobility to remain faithful unto them after his decease Yet you write that because Stephen Son of Adela Sister to King Henry was thought by the States more fit to govern he was by them admitted to the Crown In which assertion you cannot be deceived you do not err but your passion doth pull you from your own Knowledge and Judgement Polydore writeth that he possessed the Kingdom contrary to his Oath for which cause the minds of all men were exceedingly moved some did abhor and detest the impiety others and those very few unmindfull of Perjury did more boldly then honestly allow it and followed his part Further he saith that he was crowned at Westminster in an assembly of those Noble Men who were his Friends Nubrigensis affirmeth that violating his Oath he invaded the Kingdom William Malmesbury who lived in King Stephen's time saith that he was the first of all Lay-men next the King of Scots who had made Oath to the Empresse Maud and that he was Crowned three Bishops being present of whom one was his Brother no Abbot and a very few of the Nobility Henry Huntington who lived also in the same time saith that by force and impudence tempting God he invaded the Crown Afterward he reporteth that being desirous to have his Son Eustace Crowned King with him the Bishops withstood it upon Commandement from the Pope because he took upon him the Kingdom against his Oath Roger Hoveden writeth that he invaded the Crown in manner of a tempest This is the report of those Writers who came nearest both to the time and truth of this action whom other Authors do likewise follow Polydore and after him Hollingshead do write that he took upon him the Crown partly upon confidence in the power of Theobald his Brother Earl of Blois and partly by the aid of Henry his other Brother Bishop of Winchester Walsingham adaddeth that Hugh Bigot who had been King Henries Steward took an Oath before the Archbishop of Canterbury that King Henry at his death appointed Stephen to be his Successour Whereupon the Archbishop and a few others were over-lightly led like men blinded with security and of little foresight never considering of dangers until the means of remedy were past You write that they thought they might have done this with a good conscience for the good of the Realm But what good conscience could they have in defiling their faith Such consciences you endeavour to frame in all men to break an oath with as great facility as a Squirrell can crack a Nut. What good also did ensue unto the Realm The Nobility were set into factions the common people into division and disorder and as in Wars where discipline is at large there insolencies are infinite so in this confusion of the State there was no action which tended not to the ruin thereof the Lives and Goods of Men remaining in continual pillage Polydore saith Matrons were violated Virgins ravished Churches spoiled Towns and Villages rased much Cattle destroyed innumerable Men slain Into this miserable face of extremities the Realm did fall and into the same again you strive to reduce it But you say that for the ending of these Mischiefs the States in a Parliament at Wallingford made an Agreement that Stephen should be King during his life and that Henry and his Off-spring should succeed after his death A man would think you had a mint of Fables there is no History which you handle but you defile it with apish untruths All our Histories agree that King Stephen unable to range things into better form did adopt Henry to be his Successor The second Huntington saith that this agreement was mediated by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester who repented him of the furtherance he gave to the advancement of King Stephen when he saw what Miseries did thereupon ensue The like doth Hoveden report and Holingshead setteth down the form of the Charter of agreement between them whereby it is evident that it was a transaction between them two and no compulsory act or authority of the State I deny not but some Authors affirm that the King assembled the Nobility but neither were they the States of the Realm neither were they assembled to any other end but to swear Fealty unto Henry saving the King's Honour so long as he should live After the death of King Richard the first you affirm that the Succession was again broken for that Iohn Brother to King Richard was admitted by the States and Arthur Duke of Britain Son to Geoffry Elder brother unto Iohn was against the ordinary course of Succession excluded Well Sir I arrest your word remember this I pray you for I will put you in mind thereof in another place That which here you affirm to be against the ordinary course of Succession you bring in another place for proof that the Uncle hath right before the Nephew You do wildy waver in variety of Opinion speaking flat contrary according as the Ague of your passion is either in fit or intermission The History of King Iohn standeth thus King Richard the first dying without issue left behind him a Brother named Iohn and a Nepew called Arthur Son of Geoffry who was Elder Brother unto Iohn This Arthur was appointed by King Richard to succeed in his Estate as Polydore writeth Nubrigensis saith that he should have been established by consent of the Nobility if the Britains had not been so foolishly either suspicious or fond that when King Richard sent for him they refused to commit him into his Uncles hands But after the death of King Richard his Brother Iohn seized upon his Treasure in Normandy came over into England and in an Assembly only of the Nobility was crowned King Of these many he won with such liberal Protestations and Promises as men careless of their word are wont to bestow others were abused by the persuasions of Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury and a few others saith Polydore not well advised Nic. Trivet saith that Iohn pretended for his Title not the election of the People but propinquity of Blood and the testament of King Richard The same also is affirmed by Walsingham And this is the Question between the Uncle and the Nephew of which I shall have occasion to speak hereafter But Polydore saith That divers Noble-men did account this to be a fraudulent Injustice and thereupon did ominate those Evils which afterward did ensue And when the Archbishop was charged That under colour of Reason partly subborned and partly weak he had beene
we are gone rather back than away I will not presage but any man may conjecture that our minds and our means will not always want the favour of time After all this you proceed a degree further that it is lawful upon just considerations not onely to put back the next Inheritor of the Crown but also to remove him who is in full possession thereof And that is plain you say not onely by the grounds before by you alleadged but also by example of the Romans and Grecians and because God hath commonly concurred in such judicial actions of the State not onely in prospering them but in giving them also some notable Successour And yet you protest you are far from their opinion who upon every mislike are ready to band against their Prince and that you esteem the tenure of a Crown if once it be setled the most irregular whereto every man is bound to settle his Conscience without examination of Title or Interest but onely by the supreme Law of Gods disposition who can dispence in what he listeth and that notwithstanding you are as far from the abject flattery of Billaie and others who affirm that Princes are subject to no Law or limitation at all and that they succeeded by nature and birth onely and not by admission of the people and that there is no authority under God to chasten them These you call absurd Paradoxes and herewith you settle your self to shew in the next Chapter what good success hath ensued the disposition of Princes Concerning your protestation we may say unto you as Isaac said to his son Iacob The voice is Jacobs voice but the hands are the hands of Esau You speak fair and therewith also well but the main drift of your discourse is nothing else but a tempestuous Doctrine of Rebellion â—nd Disorder you being therein like the Boatman who looketh one way and pulleth another or rather like the Image of Ianus which looked two contrary ways at once It is a Rule in Law That a Protestation contrary to a mans Act will not serve to relieve him only this shall serve to convince you either of false or of forgetful dealing when we come to that place where in flat words you maintain the contrary Concerning the quarrel which you lay against Billaie as I have not seen what he hath written so will I not interpose between him and you I never heard of Christian Prince who challenged Infinite Authority without limitation of any Law either Natural or Divine But where you term it an absurd paradox that the people should not have power to chasten their Prince and upon just considerations to remove him I am content to joyn with you upon the issue And first I note the manner of your dealing in that you have omitted to express what these just considerations may be For seeing there hath been no King who is not noted of some defects and again no Tyrant who hath not many commendable parts as Plutarch writeth that Dionysius excelled most Princes in divers points of Justice and Vertue it is a matter of dangerous consequence to leave these considerations undetermined and at large But who seeth not that you do it out of policy that you may upon every particular occasion declare such causes to be sufficient as you please How then do you prove that upon any cause the people have power to dispossess their Prince This is plain you say not onely by the grounds before by you alleadged but also by example of the Romans and Graecians The grounds by you alleadged are two One in your first Chapter that because no one form of Government is natural the people have power both to choose and to change and to limit it as they please The other ground is in this Chapter that because there are divers Laws and Customs in matters of principality it sufficeth not to alleage bare proinquity of bloud Why but had you no Text of Scripture no Father of the Church to alledge no Law no Reason no better Example no surer Ground It is more than this which you bring against your self in citing out of St. Peter The Lord knoweth to reserve the unjust unto the day of Iudgment and especially them that despise Government and speak evil of those that are in Dignity And out of St. Iude Likewise these dreamers despise Government and speak evil of them that are in Authority Besides also you have alledged out of St. Paul Let every soul be subject unto the higher power for there is no power but of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves judgment And likewise out of St. Peter Submit your selves to every humane creature whether it be to the King or unto Goververnours for so is the will of God To which places we may likewise add that which St. Paul did write unto Titus Put them in remembrance that they be obedient to the principalities and powers And writing to Timothy he exhorteth us also to pray for them that we may lead under them a peaceable life But perhaps you will say that the Apostles did not mean this of wicked Princes Trifler the Apostles spake generally of all St Peter maketh express mention of evil Lords And what Princes have ever been more either irreligious or tyrannical than Caligula Tiberius Nero the infamy of their Ages under whose Empire the Apostles did both live and write Bellarmine the great master of Controversies perceiving this to be unanswerably true did in another sort rather cut than unty the knot affirming that at that time it was necessary to admonish the Christians to perform obedience to their Kings lest the preaching of the Gospel might otherwise be hindred which is as if in direct terms he should have said Sir Kings whilst our heads were under your girdle we were content to curry favour by preaching obedience unto the people But now we have got the wind of you we must plainly tell you that you hold your Crowns at their courtesie and favour and have no power in effect but as Lieutenant-Generals I know you will make a sour face at this it will go very much against your stomachs but there is no remedy you must take it down they are your good Lords they may dispossess you Prophane Bellarmine is Christian Religion a mere policy doth it apply it self onely to the present doth it turn always with the time May the principal professors thereof say as an infidel Moor did when he violated the Faith which he had given unto Christians We have no bone in our tongues that we cannot turn them which way we please We see plainly that you say so and it as is plain that it was far from the true meaning of the Apostles St. Iude writeth sharply against those who had mens persons in admiration because of advantage St. Paul also saith Go I
Haro Lord of Biscay to procure him to be advanced to the succession of the Kingdom before his Nephews D. Lope undertook the devise and drawing some other of the Nobility to the party they so wrought with the King that in an Assembly of the States at Segovia Sancho was declared Successor and the Children of Ferdinand appointed to be kept in Prison But Sancho either impatient to linger in expectation or suspitious that his Father grew inclinable towards his Nephews made a League with Mahomed Mir King of Granado a Moor by whose aid and by the Nobility of his Faction he caused himself to be declared King Hereupon Alphonso was enforced to crave assistance of Iacob Aben Ioseph King of Morocco who before had been an Enemy to Alphonso but upon detestation of his unnatural Rebellion he sent Forces to him protesting notwithstanding that so soon as the War should be ended he would become his Enemy again So Alphonso by help partly of the Morocco Moors and partly of his Subjects which remained loyal maintained against his son both his Title and State during his life but not without extremity of bloodshed and opportunity for the Moors being assistant to both parties to make themselves more strong within the Countries of Spain For this cause Alphonso disinherited his son by his Testament and cast a cruel curse upon him and his Posterity and afterward it was ordained in an Assembly of the States holden at Tero that the Children of the elder Brother deceased should be preferred before their Uncle How then will you verifie your two points by this History First that Alphonso was deprived by a publick Act of Parliament Secondly that it turned to the great Commodity of the State It is not a million of Masses that are sufficient to satisfie for all your deceitful and malicious untruths I marvel how the Rebellion of Absolon against King David his Father escaped you Oh it wanted success and you could not easily disguise the Report You write that the Commonwealth of Spain resolving to depose Don Pedro the cruel sent for his Brother Henry out of France and required him to bring a strength of Frenchmen with him But hereby you make it plain that the Commonwealth was not fully agreed The truth is that this was a dangerous division of the State between two Concurrents some holding for Henry and some for Pedro Henry obtained forraign Assistance by the French Pedro by the English In the mean time whilst Peter was thrown out of State by the Forces of France and after that Henry by the Arms of England and again Peter dejected both from dignity and life the poor Country became a Spectacle for one of your Enterludes Your Example of Don Sancho Capello King of Portugal containeth many intollerable untruths for neither was he deprived of his dignity neither did the Pope and Council of Lions give either authority or consent that he should be deprived neither was he driven out of his Realm into Castilla neither died he in banishment neither was Alphonso his Brother King during his liâ—e These five untruths you huddle into one heap The Council of Lions wholly opposed against the deposing of Don Sancho notwithstanding many disabilities were objected against him in regard whereof they gave direction that Alphonso his Brother should be Regent of the Realm as in that case it is both usual and fit But Sancho taking this to dislike did seek Aid of the King of Castile and in that pursuit ended his life without Issue whereby the right of Succession devolved to Alphonso To your Examples of Greek Emperours I will answer by your words which are That for the most part they came not orderly to the Crown but many times the means thereof were tribulent and seditious The deposing of Henry King of Polonia I acknowledge to be both true and just I have nothing to except against it When the Crown of France did descend unto him he forsook Polonia and refused to return again to that swaggering Government whereupon they did depose him Give us the like case and you shall be allowed the like proceeding but you esteem your Examples by tale and not by touch being not much unlike a certain mad Fellow in Athens who imagined every Ship which was brought into the Haven to be his For whatsoever you find of a King deposed you lay claim unto it as both lawfully done and pertaining to your purpose whereas one of these doth always fail Concerning your two Examples one of Sweden and the other of Denmark I shall have occasion to speak hereafter The Nobility of those Countries pretend that their Kings are not Soveraign but that the power in highest matters of State pertaineth unto them If it be thus the Examples are not appliable to the Question if it be otherwise then the Princes had wrong We are now come to our domestical Examples the first whereof is that of King Iohn who was deposed by the Pope you say at the suit of his own people All this people was the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Ely at whose complaint the Pope did write to Philip King of France that he should expel King Iohn out of his Realm If not Conscience if not ordinary Honesty pure Shame should have drawn you to another form of writing He was also deprived you say afterwards by his Barons Hâ—avy Beast call you this a Deprivation The Commons were never called to consent the Clergy were so opposite to those that stood in Arms against King Iohn that they procured Excommunication against them first â—â—â—â—câ—ally then by name lastly Lewes the French Kings son was also included Of the Nâ—bâ—lity which is onely the third State of the Realm I make no doubt but some reserved themselves to be guided by success others and namely the Earls of Warren Arundel Chester Pembrooke Ferrers Salisbury and divers Barons did openly adhere unto King Iohn You may as well call any other Rebellion a Deprivation as affirm that the rest either did or might deprive him And whereas you bring in King Henry the Third as a most worthy Successor after this Deprivation I will derogate nothing from his worthiness but there was never King in England who without concurrent in the Title of the Crown did draw more bloud out of the sides of his Subjects Your second Example is of King Edward the Second whom many of our Histories report to be of a good and courteous nature and not unlearned imputing his defects rather to Fortune than either to counsel or carriage of his Affairs His Deposition was a violent fury led by a Wife both cruel and unchast and can with no better countenance of right be justified than may his lamentable both indignities and death which thereupon did ensue And although the Nobility by submitting themselves to the government of his Son did break those occasions of Wars which do usually rise upon such Disorders yet did not the hand
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
Duty That which you report also that Thomas Becket did write unto King Henry the Second importeth nothing else but an acknowledgment of Duty Remember said he the Confession which you made I cannot omit your description of the manner of the Coronation in England First you say the King is sworn then the Archbishop declareth to the people what he hath sworn and demandeth if they be content to submit themselves unto him under those conditions whereunto they consenting he putteth on the Royal Ornaments and then addeth the words of commission Stand and hold thy place and keep thy Oath And thus you have hammered out a formal Election supposing that you draw together the pieces of falshood so close that no man can perceive the sâ—am The truth is that King Henry the Fourth being not the nearest in Bloud to the inheritance of the Crown did countenance his violence with the election of the people not at his Coronation but in a Parliament that was holden before And therefore you do impudently abuse us first in joyning them together as one Act secondly by falsifying divers points in both lastly by insinuating that the same order was observed by other Kings The points which you falsifie are these The interrogation of the Archbishop to the people the absurd straining of these words Stand hold thy place to be a Commission the alleadging also out of Stow 1. That the Archbishop did read unto the people what the King was bound unto by Oath 2. That the Earl of Northumberland did shew a Ring unto the people that they might thereby see the Band whereby the King was bound unto them 3. That the King did pray that he might observe his promise In whiâ—h composition of Conceits you shew how active you are in counterfeiting any thing that may make to your purpose perswading your self that it is no fraud unto God to deceive the World in a lye for advantage King Edward the Fourth also because his Right was litigious and another was in possession of the Crown strengthened or rather countenanced his Title with the approbation of the People But where you write that at the Coronation of King Edward the Sixth Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth the consent and acceptation of the people was demanded First we have no cause to credit any thing that you say then although it be true yet not being done in Parliament it addeth no right unto the Prince but is onely a formality a circumstance onely of Ceremony and Order Hereupon you conclude that a King hath his authority by agreement and contract between him and the people insinuating thereby that he loseth the same if he either violate or neglect his word The contrary opinion that onely succession of Bloud maketh a King and that the consent of the people is nothing necessary you affirm to be absurd base and impious an unlearned fond and wicked assertion in flattery of Princes to the manifest ruine of Commonwealths and perverting of all Law Order and Reason I did always foresee that your impostumed stomach would belch forth some loathsome matter But whosoever shall compare this confident conclusion with the proofs that you have made he will rather judge you mad than unwise This bold blast upon grounds that are both foolish and false bewrayeth rather want than weakness of wits I am ashamed I should offer any further speech in so evident a truth but since I have undertaken to combate an Heresie since the matter is of so great consequence and import I purpose once again to give you a Gorge Learn then heavy-headed Cloisterer unable to manage these mysteries of State learn of me I say for I owe this duty to all Christians the Prophets the Apostles Christ himself hath taught us to be obedient to Princes though both Tyrants and Infidels This ought to stand with us for a thousand reasons to submit our selves to such Kings as it pleaseth God to send unto us without either judging or examining their qualities Their hearts are in Gods hand they do his service sometimes in preserving sometimes in punishing us they execute his judgment both ways in the same measure which he doth prescribe If they abuse any part of their power we do not excuse we do not extenuate it we do not exempt them from their punishment let them look unto it let them assuredly expect that God will dart his vengeance against them with a most stiff and dreadful arm In the mean season we must not oppose our selves otherwise than by humble suits and prayers acknowledging that those evils are always just for us to suffer which are many times unjust for them to do If we do otherwise if we break into tumult and disorder we resemble those Giants of whom the Poets write who making offer to scale the Skies and to pull Iupiter out of his Throne were overwhelmed in a moment with the Mountains which they had heaped together Believe it Cloisterer or ask any man who is both honest and wise and he will tell you It is a Rule in Reason a Tryal in Experience an Authority confirmed by the best That Rebellion produceth more horrible effects than either the tyranny or insufficiency of any Prince An Answer to the sixth Chapter whereof the title is What is due to onely Succession by Birth and what interest or right an Heir apparent hath to the Crown before he is crowned or admitted by the Commonwealth and how justly he may be put back if he hath not the parts requisite YOu begin after your manner with a carreer against Billay but because both I have not seen what he hath written and dare not credit what you report I will not set in foot between you In breaking from this you prefer Succession of Princes before free Election as well for other respects as for the pre-eminence of Ancestry in birth which is so much priviledged in the Scripture and yet not made so inviolable you say but upon just causes it might be inverted as it appeareth by the examples of Iacob Iudah and Solomon And this liberty you hold to be the principal remedy for such inconveniencies as do ensue of the course of Succession as if the next in birth be unable or pernicious to govern in which cases if he be not capable of directions and counsels you affirm that the remedy is to remove him And so you make Succession and Election the one to be a preservative to the other supposing that the difficulties of both are taken away First if ordinarily Succession taketh place then if upon occasion we give allowance to Election For the Prerogative of Birth as also for the special choice which God hath often made of the youngest I will remit my self to that which I have written before At once in those particular actions which God hath either done or by express Oracle commanded contrary to the general Laws which he hath given us as in the Robbery of the Egyptians the extirpation of the Amalekites
ensign of the never-dying Majesty of the Crown In regard of this certain and incontinent succession the Glossographer upon the Decrees noteth That the Son of a King may be called King during the life of his Father as wanting nothing but administration wherein he is followed with great applause by Baldus Paenormitane Iason Carol. Ruinus Andreas Iserna Martinus Card. Alexander Albericus Fed. Barbatius Philip Decius and Ant. Corsetta Fra. Luca Matthe Afflict And the same also doth Servius note out of Virgil where he saith of Ascanius Regemque requirunt his Father Aeneas being yet alive But so soon as the King departeth out of life the Royalty is presently transferred to the next Successour according to the Laws and Customs of our Realm All Writs go forth in his Name all course of Justice is exercised all Offices are held by his Authority all States all Persons are bound to bear to him Allegeance not under supposal of approbation when he shall be Crowned according to your dull and drousie conjecture but as being the true Soveraign King of the Realm He that knoweth not this may in regard of the affairs of our State joyn himself to St. Anthony in glorying in his ignorance and professing that he knoweth nothing Queen Mary Reigned three months before she was Crowned in which space the Duke of Northumberland and others were condemned and executed for Treason for Treason I say which they had committed before she was proclaimed Queen King Edward the first was in Palestina when his Father died in which his absence the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm assembled at London and did acknowledge him for their King In his return homeward he did homage to the French King for the lands which he held of him in France He also repressed certain Rebels of Gascoine amongst whom Gasco of Bierne appealed to the Court of the King of France where King Edward had Judgment that Gasco had committed Treason and thereupon he was delivered to the pleasure of King Edward And this hapned before his Coronation which was a year and nine months after he began to reign King Henry the sixth was crowned in the eighth year of his Reign and in the mean space not only his Subjects did both profess and bear Allegeance but the King of Scots also did swear Homage unto him What need I give any more either instance or argument in that which is the clear Law the uncontrouled custom of the Realm Against which notwithstanding your weather-beaten forehead doth not blush to oppose a blind Opinion that Heirs apparent are not true Kings although their Titles be just and their predecessors dead This you labour to prove by a few dry conjectures but especially and above all others you say because the Realm is asked three times at every Coronation whether they will have such a man to be their King or no. First we have good reason to require better proof of this question than your bare word Secondly although we admit it to be true yet seeing the answer is not made by the Estates of the Realm assembled in Parliament but by a confused concourse necessary Officers excepted of all sorts both of Age and Sex it is for Ceremony only and not of force either to give or to increase any right Another of your Arguments is for that the Prince doth first swear to Govern well and justly before the Subjects take their Oath of Allegeance which argueth that before they were not bound And further you affirm that it hapned onely to King Henry the fifth among his predecessors to have fealty done unto him before he was crowned and had taken his Oath I confess indeed that Polydore and Stow have written so but you might easily have found that they write not true the one of them being a meer stranger in our State the other a man more to be commended for endeavour than for art King Iohn being in Normandy when his Brother died sent into England Hubert Arch-bishop of Canterbury William Marshal Earl of Strigvile and Geoffry Fitzpeter Lord Chief Justice who assembled the States of the Realm at Northampton and took of them an Oath of obedience to the new King Also King Henry the Third caused the Citizens of London the Guardians of the Cinque-ports and divers others to swear fealty to Prince Edward his son who being in Palestina when his Father died the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm assembled in the new Temple at London and did acknowledge him for their King And in like manner King Edward the Third took an Oath of all the Nobility of the Realm of faith after his death to Richard Prince of Wales and so did King Henry the first for his Daughter Mawde and her young son Henry After the death of King Henry the Fifth that Subjects did often swear allegeance before the Coronation and Oath of the King you had neither Countenance nor Conscience to deny but it was neither of these two which did restrain you it proceeded onely from the force of truth which will manifest it self whatsoever art we use to disguise it For otherwise what Countenance what Conscience had you to affirm that it is expresly noted by our English Historiographers That no Allegeance is due unto Kings before they be crowned Who are these Historiographers Where do they so write You that search every dusty corner of your Brains for a few ragged reasons to uphold your Heresie should not either have mentioned or omitted such pregnant proofs For in that you affirm and do not express them you condemn your self by your own silence If you mean that which you alleadge out of Polydore and Stowe That an Oath of fealty was never made before Coronation until the time of King Henry the Fifth it is neither true nor to any such sence If you mean that of Polydore in terming Henry the Fifth Prince and not King before he was crowned in writing also that the States did consult in Parliament Of creating a new King after the custom of their Ancestors It is a sleepie jeast to strain every word in such an Author to propriety of speech You might better have cited what certain Cities in France not long since alleadged for themselves That because they had not reputed Henry the Fourth for their King because they had not professed Alleageance unto him they were not to be adjudged Rebels Whereupon notwithstanding the chiefest Lawyers of our age did resolve that forasmuch as they were original Subjects even Subjects by birth they were Rebels in bearing Arms against their King although they had never professed alleageance And this is so evidently the Law of the Realm that it is presumption in us both in you to assay by your shallow Sophistry to obscure or impugn in me to endeavour by authorities and arguments to manifest or defend the same But the admission of the people you say hath often prevailed against
Enterprise At the last when lamentable Experience had made that known unto them which they had no Capacity by reason to foresee they expelled as well your Company as Counsel out of the Realm and so the Firebrands which you had kindled were broken upon your own Heads having opportunity by your just banishment to take into Consideration both the Weakness and Wrong of your Advice The partition of the Realm of France betwen Charles the Great and Charloman his younger Brother and also the uniting thereof again in Charles after the death of Charloman depended upon the disposition of Pepin their Father and not upon the Election of the People Girard saith that Pepin having disposed all things in his new Realm which he thought necessary for the surety thereof he disposed his Estate leaving the Realm of Noion to his Son Charles and to Charloman his other Son that of Soisons that by the death of Carloman both his Place and his Power did accrue unto Charles In this manner the first of a family who hath attained a Kingdom hath ordinarily directed the Succession thereof The Contention between Lewis le Debonaire and his sonnes according to your own Author Girard proceeded and succeeded after this manner Certain Lords of France taking discontentment at the immoderate favours which the king shewed toward Berard his great Chamberlain conspired against him and for their greater both countenance and strength drew his owne sonnes to be of their faction But Lewis brake this broile more by foresight than by force and doing execution upon the principal offenders pardoned his Sons Yet they interpreting this lenity to slackness of courage rebelled again gathered a greater strength drew Pope Gregory the fourth to be accomplice of their unnatural impietie whereby it appeareth saith Girard that they are either foolish or mischievous who will affirm that every thing is good which the Popes have done Afterward they took their Father under colour of good faith and sent him prisoner to Tortone and then at Compeigne assembled a Parliament composed of their own confederates wherein they made him a Monk and brought his estate into division and share It is easie to conjecture saith the same Girard what miserable conditions the Realm then endured all Laws were subverted all things exposed to the rage of the Sword the whole Realm in combustion and the people extreamely discontented at this barbarous impiety In the end Lewes by the aid of his faithful servants was taken out of prison and restored to his Kingdom and his Sons acknowledging their fault were received by him both to pardon and favour His son Pepin being dead he divided his Realm among his other three Sons Charles Lewes and Lothaire but Lewes rebelled again and was again received to mercie lastly he stirred a great part of Germanie to revolt with grief whereof the good old man his Father died After his death Lewes and Lothaire upon disdain at the great portion which their Father had assigned to their brother Charles raised war against him The Battel was given wherein Charles ramained victorious reducing them both under such conditions as he thought convenient to impose Lo◠here one of your plain and evident examples which is so free from all exception But mindes corruptly inclined hold nothing unlawful nothing unreasonable which agreeth with their passion Loys le Begue succeded after Charles not as you affirm by authoritie of the states but as in France at that time it was not unusuall by appointment of his Father And wheras you write that Loys at his first entrance had like to have bin deprived by the states but that calling a Parlament he made them many fair promises to have their good will it is a very idle untruth as appeareth by the Author whom you avouch At his death he left his wife great with child who afterward was called Charles the simple But before he had accomplished the age of 12 years there stept up in his place first Loys and Carloman his bastard brothers then Charles surnamed le Gros and after him Odo Earle of Paris Then Charles the right heir attained the Crown and then again were raised against him first Robert Earle of Angiers and afterward Ralph king of Burgundie But where you attribute these mutations to the authoritie of the states Girard saith that they where by faction and usurpation of such who from the weakness of their Prince did make advantage to their own ambition affirming plainly that between the death of Loys le Begue and Charles the simple not one of them who held the crown of the Realm was lawfull king noting further that the first two races of Kings were full of cruel parricides murthers and that in those times the Realm was often travelled with tempests of sedition Of the usurpation of Hugh Capet I have spoken before Girard writeth that although he sought many shadows of right yet his best title was by force which is the common right of first usurpers And whereas you write that Henry the first was preferred to the crown of France before Robert his helder brother First it was not by appointment of the states but of their father Secondly Girard maketh the matter doubtfull affirming that some said he was the younger brother Lastly it set up a dangerous and doubtfull war between them Further where you write that William being a bastard succeded Robert his Father in the Duchie of Normandie notwithstanding the said Robert left two brothers in life it was at that time a custom in France that bastards did succeed even as lawfull children Thierry bastard of Clovis had for his partage the kingdome of Austrasie now called Lorraine Sigisbert bastard of King Dagobert the first parted with Clovis the twelfth his lawfull brother Loys and Carloman bastards of King Loys le Begue reigned after their Father But in the third race of the kings of France a law was made that bastards should not succed in the Crown and yet other bastards of great houses were still advowed the French being then of the same opinion with Peleus in Euripides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oftentimes many Bastards excell those that are lawfully Born which is verified by Hercules Alexander the Great Romulus Timotheus Themistocles Homer Demosthenes Brutus Bion Bartolus Gratian Peter Lombard Peter Comestor Io. Andreas and divers other of most Flourishing name Your examples of Lewes the 6. and Lewes the 11. are not worth a word in answer In the beginning of their reign you affirm that they had like to have been dis-inherited by the State for the offences of their Father You bear a minde charged with thoughts Vain Busie and Bold without any restraint either of Honesty or of Discretion For how else could you here also affirm that King Henry the third of England was condemned by his Barons to be disinherited for the fault of his Father It is usual with you in all your reports either
plainly to break beyond the bounds of all truth or grossely for I cannot now say artificially to disguise it with many false and deceiveable terms But to conclude for the state of France which is also to exclude whatsoever you have said under the Reign of Charles the fift for the better establishment of this right and for cutting off those calamities which accompany usurpation there was a Law made that after the death of any King the eldest Son should incontinently succeed We are now come to our English examples of which you might have omitted those of the Saxon Kings as well for that there could be no setled form of Government in those Tumultuous times as also for that our Histories of that Age are very imperfect not leading us in the Circumstances either of the manner or occasion of particular actions they declare in Gross what things were done without further opening either how or wherefore But both these do make for your advantage for who seeth not that your examples are chiefly bred in Tempestuous times and the obscuritie of Histories will serve for a shadow to darken your deceit Well let us take both the Times and Histories as they are How will you maintain that Egbert was not next Successor to Briticus by propinquitie of Blood Briticus left no Children and Egbert was descended of the Blood Royal as Polydore affirmeth William Malmesbury saith that he was â—he only Man alive of the Royal Blood beâ—ng descended of Inegild the Brother of King Ina. How then is it true which you say that Briticus was the last of the royal Descent and if it had been so indeed the right of Election should then have been in the State And thus you Stumble at every step you entangle your self without Truth or End You snatch at the words of Polydore where he saith He is created King by consent of all which do imply no other sense but that which a little after he saith That he was saluted King by all So we finde also that the like Improper speech was used at the Coronation of Philip the Second King of France whereby the Archbishop of Reimes did Challenge power in the right of his See to make Election of the King That Adelstane was illegitimate you follow Polydore a Man of no great either Industry or Judgement William Malmesbury accounted Egwina the Mother of Adelstane to be the first Wife of King Edward his Father he termeth her also a noble Woman contrary to that which Polydore fableth Henry Huntington Roger Hoveden and others write no otherwise of him but as of one that was lawfully Born And in that you english these words of Polydore Rex dicitur Rex a populo salutatur He was made King by the People In that you affirm also that for the opinion of his valour he was preferred before his Brethren which were lawfully born whom you acknowledge to be Men of most Excellent both Expectation and proof you do plainly shew that use hath made you too open in straining of truth Eldred did first take upon him but as Protector because of the minoritie of the sonnes of Edmund his elder brother and afterward entred into full possession of the Crown But that his Nephewes were put back by the Realm it is your own idle invention it was no more the act of the realme than was the usurpation of King Richard the third That Edwin was deposed from his estate it is inexcusably untrue Polydore writeth that the Northumbrians and Mercians not fully setled in subjection made a revolt Malmesburie saith that he was maimed of a great part of his kingdome by the stroke of which injurie he ended his life And whereas you write in commendation of Kind Edgar his next successor that he kept a Navie of 6600 shippes for defence of the Realme you discover your defective judgement in embracing such reports for true In that you say that many good men of the Realm were of opinion not to admit the succession of Etheldred after the death of his brother I dare confidently affirm that you do not only tell but make an untruth having no author either to excuse or countenance the same In that you write also that between the death of Edmund Ironside and the reigne of William Conquerour it did plainly appear what interest the Common-wealth hath to alter titles of succession it doth plainly appear that both you reason and your conscience is become slavish to your violent desire For what either libertie or power had the Common-wealth under the barbarous rage and oppression of the Danes when Canutus had spread the wings of his fortune over the whole Realm none having either heart or power to oppose against him what choice was then left unto the people what room for right what man not banished from sobrietie of sense would ever have said that he was admitted king by the whole Parliament and consent of the Realme It is true that after he had both violently and unjustly obtained full possession of the Realme slain the brother of Edmund Ironside and conveyed his Children into Sueden he assembled the Nobilitie and caused himself to be crowned king but neither the form nor name of a Parliament was then known in England and if coronation were sufficient to make a title no king should be accounted to usurp Of Harold the first the natural Son of Canutus our Histories doe verie differently reporâ— Saxo Grammaticus writeth that he was never king but that he died before his Father Henry of Huntington reporteth that he was appointed but as Regent for his brother Hardicanutus Others write that apprehending the opportunitie of his Brothers absence he invaded Northumberland and Mercia by force of the Danes who were in England whereupon the Realm was divided one partholding for Harold and another for Hardicanutus who was in Denmark But because he delayed to come into England they all fell rather not to deny then to acknowledge Harold for their king Take now which of these reports you please for all do serve to your purpose alike Hardicanutus after the death of Harold came out of Denmark into England and the people having their courages broken with bondage were easie to entertain the strongest pretender But after his death divers of the Nobility especially Godwin Earl of Kent rising into hope to shake off their shoulders the importable yoke of the Danes advanced Edward the Son of Etheldred to the Crown as being the next of the Race of the Saxon Kings though not in blood yet at hand for Edward the Outlaw his elder Brother was then in Hungary and fear being the only knot that had fastened the people to the Danish Kings that once united they all scattered from them like so many birds whose Cage had been broken Edward being dead Harold the Son of Godwine usurped the Kingdom for as Malmesbury saith By extorted faith from the nobility he fastned upon the Crown a forceable gripe
you would not thus openly oppose the setlings of your rotten brain against the express and direct sentence of God What is it a damnable sin to do every man right is it damnable to give Caesar that which is his due to give tribute honour fear to whom they appertain The Apostle saith that Christians by resisting the power of Infidel Rulers do acquire unto themselves damnation and shall we yield credit unto you that Turks Moors Infidels should damnably sin either in admitting or enduring the authority of a Christian Prince How cheap do you value the judgments of men at how low rate do you prize both your conscience and credit I could rise into riot of words upon you were it not that I respect what is seemly rather for me to speak then for you to hear Certainly if we had received no such commandement from God the regard of the quiet of humane societies is sufficient to overwhelm your Heritical Assertion for seeing there are many different professions of Religion not only in the World but almost in every Nation of the World seeing also Cas Philo saith every man either by use or instruction judgeth his own Religion best what surety could any Prince what safety could any people enjoy if your fiery opinion should take place what assurance can there be of Life or of State where the Sword beareth sway upon such occasions and that guided by hands both Tumultuous and fierce And seeing among many Religions there can be but one Truth if all Men should be obstinately bent against the Government of any who in their Judgment is Faulty in Religion what likelihood can we either conceive or conjecture but that many Errors would soon prevail against the only Truth And therefore 't is far more moderate and safe to use the ordinary means both of maintaining and propagating the truth and to commit the success thereof unto God and as Iosephus adviseth not to offer either conâ—umelie or violence against any Religion lest we provoke thereby the Professors thereof to do the like against ours Your last Reason is drawn from Policy and consideration of State because a King will neither trust nor favour much less advance him that is not of the same Religion with himself but to the contrary he shall be Subject to all molestations injuries and other aversions which are incident to those who are not current with the present course of affairs Oh Sir this is the Helene for which you contend you concur in opinion with those Athenians of whom Alexander demanded divine honours not so obstinately to defend Heaven as to lose the benefit of the Earth This is the mark whereat you aime this is the Compass whereby you sail as divers flowers do open and close according to the Motion of the Sun so according to the variation hereof you extend or restrain your plyant Conscience as you please But the Appostle teacheth us to be obedient to higher Powers for Conscience sake and not for any private respect Besides all Princes are not of that disposition whereof you speak Suidas writeth of one who changeing Religion to please his King was therefore adjudged to lose his head one being appointed to cry at the time of his Execution He that keepeth not Faith with God what sound Conscience can he bear towards Men The Protestants in France are not alltogether cast either out of Favour or out of Charge and many Roman Catholicks in England do enjoy their full part of all the plenty and pleasures that the Realme can afford Lastly what have you to do with Reasons of State This is the Eagles Feather which consumeth your devotion Your Office is to meditate to pray to instruct men in pure Devotion to settle their Souls in Piety and in Peace But do you contain your selves within these limits nothing less You take upon you the Policy of State you rend and deface the reputation of Kings you make your selves both judges and moderators of all their actions allowing them to fly no further then you give them wings You dispose not only their Affairs but their Crowns at your pleasure you hunt them not to Covert but to Death You contrive ways to compass your designs you train up your Followers in the high mistery of Treason you cast into every Realm the Apple of Strife your Doctrine is to no other use but as Drumms Fifes and Trumpets to Incense Fury To these ends you wrest Scriptures you corrupt Histories you counterfeit Reasons you corrupt all Truth pardon my plainness I pray you I have not attended to your dexterity in disguising matters with smooth terms you are obstinate to hazard rather all dangers then to be cut off from one point of your purpose You acknowledge no Religion but your Will no Law but your Power all Lies Treacheries and Frauds do change their Nature and become both lawfull and laudable actions when they bear for the advantage of your affairs But this is directed to devotion you will say and as you terme it ordine ad deum for a holy and Religious end Away then with your devotion and so we shall be rid of your dangerous deceit Away I say with your devotion or else we will conclude of you as Livie did of Anniball Nihil veri nihil sancti nullus deum metus nullum jusjurandum nulla religio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FINIS In. c. 1. tit de success feud In quaest aâ— rex Franciae recognoscaâ— superiorem In l. nemo D. de leg L. In l. cum praeror non autem D. de Judâ— Apud Aristor rhetor 3. ca. 10 Lib 5. In ceâ—psychore In ejuâ— vita Lib. 3. ca. 2 Ubl. 5. Antiqu. 14. ca. Lib. 1.2 belli Punici Allobroges In Lisandr Michael Riccius Lib 1 dâ— l' estate de France Cons. 389 lib. 1 Cons. 47 lib 3. In c. 1. tit an mutus vel imperfectus in c. vit Epis. vel ab Lib. 3. D. de interdic rel l. 2. C. de liberi cor lib. l. divi fratres D jur patâ— l. quae ritur D. de bo lib. panor cons. 85. lib. 1. Io. Anno. in c. significasti de fo comp In l. vii in si de senat c. lus naturale dist 3. 1.2 q. 94 d. 2 2 Rom. cap. 2. 3 Quod naturalis ratio inter omnes homines constituit id apud omnes peraeque custoditur vocaturque juâ— gentium l. ix D. de just jur Just. de rer diâ—â— singulorum In re consensio omnium gentium lex naturae putanda est 1 Thuscul In l. 1. C. de tâ—stam Socrat. In com ju 6. Ad ephes 4. Tit. C 3. de decret ab ord fac l. 32. de legi Ad Q. fratrem provocandum ad sensus Interiori nescâ—o qua conscientia iâ—â—aec seâ—timus de util cred Omne malum aut timore aut pudore natura perfudit in apol Licet possint negare non possunt tamen non erubeâ—cere 3. de offic 14.