of the King of Tombute did enterprize to attain Soveraignty above them which by violence he effected and left the same to his posterity And because I will not be tedious in running through particulars give you an instance of any one people which hath not divers times received both Prince and Government by absolute constraint Et Phillida solus habito and I will yield to all that you affirm But failing herein you shall be enforced to confess that in many yea in most if not in all Countries the people have received liberty either from the grant or permission of the victorious Prince and not the Prince authority from the vanquished people What helps now do you imagine that the people have assigned to their Prince The first you affirm to be the direction of Laws But it is evident that in the first heroical Ages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 people were not governed by any positive Law but their Kings did both Judge and Command by their word by their will by their absolute power and as Pomponius saith Omnia manu a regibus gubernabantur Kings governed all things without either restraint or direction but onely of the Law of Nature The first Law was promulged by Moses but this was so long before the Laws of other Nations that Iosephus writeth It was more ancient than their Gods Affirming also that the word Law is not found in Homer or in Orpheus or in any Writer of like antiquity· Of this Law of Nature Homer maketh mention in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they who keep the Laws which God hath prescribed And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncivil and unjust is he and wanting private state Who holdeth not all civil War in horror and in hate And of the Justice of Kings he writeth in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on In which verses Chrysostom affirmeth by the judgment of Alexander that Homer hath delineated the perfect Image of a King but that he maketh mention of any positive Laws I do rather doubt than assuredly deny For Kings in ancient times did give judgment in person not out of any formality in Law but onely according to natural equity Virgil saith Hoc Priami gestamen erat cum jura vocatis Moredaret populis This was the Robe which Priamus did always use to wear When he the People to him call'd their causes for to hear Which he doth also affirm of Aeneas Dido and of Alcestes This like doth Herodotus report of Midas King of Phrygia who consecrated his Tribunal to Apollo and the like also doth Plutarch of divers Kings of Macedonia Philarchus affirmeth in Athenaeus that the Kings of Persia had Palm-trees and Vines of Gold under which they did sit to hear Causes But because it grew both troublesome and tedious for all the People to receive their Right from one man Laws were invented as Cicero saith and Officers also appointed to execute the same Another Original of Laws was thus occasioned When any People were subdued by Arms Laws were laid like Logs upon their necks to keep them in more sure subjection which both because it is not doubtful and to avoid prolixity I will manifest onely by our own example When the Romans had reduced the best part of this Island into the form of a Province as they permitted liberty of Law to no other Country under their obedience so here also they planted the practice of their Laws and for this purpose they sent over many Professors and among others Papinian the most famous both for Knowledge and Integrity of all the Authors of the Civil Law Again when the Saxons had forced this Realm and parted it into seven Kingdoms they erected so many sets of Law of which onely two were of continuance the Mercian Law and the West-Saxon Law After these the Danes became victorious and by these new Lords new Laws were also imposed which bare the name of Dane-law Out of these three Laws partly moderated partly supplied King Edward the Confessor composed that body of Law which afterwards was called St. Edward's Laws Lastly the Normans brought the Land under their power by whom St. Edward's Laws were abrogated and not onely new Laws but new Language brought into use insomuch as all Pleas were formed in French and in the same Tongue Children were taught the principles of Grammar These causes we find of the beginning of Laws but that they were assigned by the people for assistance and direction to their Kings you bring neither Argument nor Authority for proof it is a part of the dross of your own device The second help which you affirm that Commonwealths have assigned to their Kings is by Parliaments and Privy-Councils But Parliaments in all places have been erected by Kings as the Parliament of Paris and of Mâ—ntpellier in France by Philip the Fair the Parliament in England by Henry the First who in the sixteenth year of his Reign called a Councel of all the States of his Realm at Salisbury which our Historiographers do take for the first Parliament in England affirming that the Kings before that time did never call the common People to Councel After this the Privy-Council at the instance of the Archbishop of Canterbury was also established and since that time the Counsellors of State have always been placed by election of the Prince And that it was so likewise in ancient times it appeareth by that which Homer writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First he established a Council of honorable old men And likewise by Virgil gaudet regno Trojanus Acestes Indicitque forum patribus dat jura vocatis Acestes of the Trojan Bloud in Kingdom doth delight He sets a Court and Councel calls and gives each man his Right I will pass over your coarse foggy drowsie Conceit that there are few or none simple Monarchies in the world for it would tire a Dog to toyl after your impertinent errours and will now rip up your Packet of Examples whereby you endeavour to shew that the Power of Kings hath been bridled by their Subjects But what do you infer hereby what can you inforce will you rake over all Histories for examples of Rebellion and then argue a facto ad jus that every thing is lawful which you find to have been done Iustinian saith Non exemplis sed legibus judicandum We must judge Facts by Law and not Law by Facts or by Examples which Alciate and Deeiane do term a Golden Law because there is no Action either so impious or absurd which may not be paralleled by Examples Will you prove it lawful to use carnal familiarity with the Sister with the Mother-in-law with the natural Mother You have the example of Cambyses for the first Caracalla for the second Dionysius and Nero for the third The Iews upon whom God had setled his
Choise did at times beside many other Enormities erect Malestews Of the two Nations whose Examples you use the Romans and the Lacedemonians the first did the like under divers Empâ—rours as Lampridius writeth and in more ancient times allowed also Parricide of Children the other would sort themselves by fifteen and twenty Families together and hold both Wives and Goods in common I omit the unnatural customs of divers other Nations and will now declare how in straining a few Examples to countenance your Conceit you are constrained to bear your self no less cunning in concealing truths than bold in avouching things which are not onely uncertain but plainly false It is true which you write that the Kings of Sparta by the institution of Lyâ—urgus were obâ—dient to the Officers called Ephori but these were Titular Kings having no other power but a single voice among the Senators and because all Affairs were carried by consent of the People the Estate was then esteemed popular Afterwards Theopompus by pretence of an Oracle drew this Authority from the People to a Senate of thirty whereby the Government did change into an Aristocracy and yet the naked name of Kings was retained By this shuffling-off Rule the Lacedemonians were continually tossed with Tempests of Sedition ceasing not to wade in their own Bloud as before you have acknowledged until in the end they were brought into subjection first by the Macedonians afterward by the Achaeans and lastly by the Romanâ— I will not say now what reason have we but what a shame is it for us to open our ears to these Utopical State-writers who being mellowed in Idleness and having neither Knowledge nor Interest in matters of Government make new Models upon disproportioned joynts borrowed from Nations most different in Rule You affirm by the testimony of Livy that for offence taken against Romulus because he raigned at Pleasure and not by Law the Senators did cut him in pieces in which short Assertion many base untruths are included beneath the degree of any vile word Livy writeth that he sorted the People into order and governed them by Laws and that he was also both advised and valiant in the Field even such a one as Homer describeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both a good King and courageous Commander Concerning his end Livy writeth that in taking muster of his Army a thick Tempest did arise after which he was never seen wherein he is seconded by Solinus Eutropius and the rest onely Livy addeth that there was a rumor but very obscure without any certain either Author or ground I will adde also without probability that he was torn in pieces for how probable is it that such a Fact in the open view of his Army could be very obscure How probable is it also that the People would first tear him in pieces for his Injustice and then worship him for a God Further with what either confidence or conceit do you alledge this Report of Livy for his opinion I find your fetch you apprehend every thing which may if not confirm yet countenance that Doctrine which lately you have drawn out of Cerberus Den That it is lawful to contrive the death of Kings That the People were grieved against Servius Tullius for reigning without Election it is a meer Fantasie a Dream a Device Livy saith that he was declared King with such a Consent as no man had been before him That Tarquinius neglected the Laws of Government prescribed to him by the Common-wealth it is an ugly untruth Livy saith that he brake the ancient manner of Kings before him But for Laws Pomponius affirmeth that at that time the Romans had no Laws but from their Kings and that Sextus Papirius reduced them into one Volume which was called the Civil Law of Papirius and that when the People expelled their Kings they abrogated their Laws also and remained twenty years without any Law Lastly you adde that the Romans did expel their Kings and erect Consuls in their stead but you suppress that which followed which I hold for a common consequence of the like disorder First that for this cause they were presently almost overwhelmed with Wars Secondly that in this state they never enjoyed long time free from Sedition Lastly that as Tacitus saith there was no means to appease these Tumults but by returning to a Monarchy again All this I write rather to manifest the manner of your dealing than that I hold it much regardable what Romans did Your Examples of our present Age I will wrap up in these few words All Nations very few excepted do consent in this form of Government first to be under one Prince secondly to accept him by succession according to propinquity of Bloud In other circumstances either for inaugurating their Prince or for the manner of managing and executing his Government not two Nations in the world in all points do agree And yet is not this diversity raised by any Laws which the People do prescribe unto their Prince as you do most grosly yea peevishly yea maliciously affirm but by the particular Laws and Customs of every Nation in which the consent of the Prince either secret or express sometimes onely is sufficient always principally doth concur Upon this diversity of Customs you conclude that it sufficeth not to alleadge bare propinquity of Bloud What not where that Custom is established as I have declared it to be in most Nations of the World Doth difference of Customs make all Custom void Doth diversity of Custom in some circumstances take away the principal Custom of Succession by Bloud This cleaveth together no surer than Sand you lose both labour and credit in obtruding unto us these weak and loose Arguments without either force of Reason or form of Art Your instance of the Law Salick in France doth offer occasion to enter into a large Field wherein I could plainly prove that there was never any such Law made to bind the descent of the Crown of France and that it hath been the custom in most parts of the world not to exclude Women from succession in State insomuch as Beda and before him Eusebius and Pliny do write that certain People were governed onely by Princes of that Sex But because this is a matter both of long discourse and not proper to our purpose I will contain my self within this Observation That the Exclusion of King Edward the Third from the Crown of France upon this pretence was the cause of the effusion of their bravest Bloud and of the spoil waste and conquest of all that Realm I acknowledge that the English have lost the possession of that Conquest and that was by means of domestical Wars for excluding the nearest in Bloud from the Crown into which unquiet Quarrel you do now endeavour again to embark us Yet no man can assure that the miseries of France for this cause are at an end Rams recoil to strike harder
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
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
Henry Huntington also and out of him Polydore do write that upon confidence of his power he invaded the Crown which usurpation gave both encouragement and successe to the Enterprise of the Normans This short passage of History you do defile with so many untruths that it seemeth you have as natural a gift to falsifie as to eat drink or sleep But where you write that William the Conqueror formed any title by consent of the Realm you grow into the degree of ridiculous We find that he pretended the Institution of King Edward which had neither probability nor force and that he was nearer to him in blood than Harold the Usurper but that he ever pretended the Election of the People it is your own clouted conceit For when he had routed the English Army in the field when he had sacked their Towns harrassed their Villages slain much people and bent his Sword against the breasts of the rest what free Election could they then make Your self acknowledge also in another place that he came to the Crown by dint of Sword and at his death his own conscience constrained him to confesse that he took it without right And in that the Pope and the French King favoured his enterprise it is not material this is not the first injustice which they have assisted Neither was it the Popes hallowed Banner as you affirm but the Bow and the Arrow the only weapon of advantage long time after to this Nation whereby he did obtain the Victory One help he had also within the Realm for that King Edward had advanced divers Normans to high place both of Dignity and Charge who gave unto him much secret both incouragement and assistance in his Attempt And thus in all these turbulent times you are so far from finding five or six that you are short of any one who was made King by free Authority of the People King William Rufus made no other Title to the Crown but the Testament of his Father For often use hath confirmed it for Law that a Victor may freely dispose of the Succession of that State which he hath obtained by the purchase of his Sword The Conqueror disinherited his Eldest Son Robert for that joining with Philip King of France he invaded wasted and spoiled Normandy and joyned in open battel against his Father wherein the Father was unhorsed and wounded and brought to a desperate distress of his Life Hereupon he cast forth a cruel Curse against his Son which he could never be intreated to revoke in so much that upon his death-bed he said of him that it was a miserable Countrey which should be subject to his Dominion for that he was a proud and foolish Knave and to be long scourged with cruel Fortune And whereas you write that at the time of his Fathers death he was absent in the war of Ierusalem it is a very negligent untruth But it is an idle untruth that you write that Henry the first had no other Title to the Crown but the Election of the People He never was Elected by the People he never pretended any such Title Nubrigensis and after him Polydore do report that he laid his Title because he was born after his Father was King Malmesbury saith Henry the youngest Sons of William the Great being an Infant according to the desires and wishes of all men was excellently brought up because he alone of all the Sons of William was Princely born and the Kingdom seemed to appertain unto him He was born in England in the third year after his Father entred into it And this was the like Controversie to that which Herodotus reporteth to have happened between the Sons of Darius the Son of Hystaspis King of Persia when he prepared an expedition against the Grecians and Aegyptians because by the Laws of Persia the King might not enter into enterprise of Arms before he had declared his Successor Darius had three Children before he was King by his first Wife the Daughter of Gobris and after he attained the Kingdom he had other four by Anrosa the Daughter of Cyrus Artabazanes was eldest of the first sort Xerxes of the second Artabazanes alledged that he was eldest of all the Kings children and that it was the Custom amongst all men that the eldest should enjoy the Principality Xerxes alledged that he was begotten of Atossa the daughter of that King by whose puissance the Persians had gained not onely Liberty but also Power Before Darius had given sentence Demaratus the son of Aristo cast out of his Kingdom of Sparta came unto Xerxes and advised him to alledge further that he was the eldest son of Darius after he was king and that it was the Custom of Sparta that if any man had Children in private estate and afterward another son when he was King this last son should be his Successor upon which ground Darius pronounced in the bealf of Xerxes The same History is reported by Iustine and touched also by Plutarch although they differ both from Herodotus and one from the other in some points of circumstances Hereto also agreeth that which Iosephus writeth in reprehending King Herod for excluding Alexander and Aristobulus his Sons and appointing Antipater born to him in private estate to succeed in his Kingdom Many great Lawyers have subscribed their opinions to this kind of title and namely Pet. Cynus Baldus Albericus Raph. Fulgosius Rebuffus and Anto. Corsetta delivereth it for a common opinion But with this exception if the kingdom be acquired by any other title then by succession according to proximity in blood for in this case because the dignity is inherent in the stock the eldest Son shall succeed although he were born before his father was King And therefore Plutarch writeth that after the kingdom of Persia was setled in succession when Darius the King had four Sons Artaxerxes the Eldest Cyrus the next and two other Parysatis his wife having a desire that Cyrus should succeed in the kingdom pressed in his behalf the same reason wherewith Xerxes had prevailed before affirming that she had brought forth Artaxerxes to Darius when he was a private man but Cyrus when he was a king Yet Plutarch writeth that the reason which she used was nothing probable and that the eldest was designed to be King Howsoever the right stood between Robert Duke of Normandie and his younger brothers the fact did not stand either with the quiet or safetie of the Realm For during the reigne of William Rufus it was often infested upon this quarrel both with foreign arms and civil seditions which possessed all places with disorder and many also with fire rapine and bloud the principal effects of a licentious war These mischiefs not onely continued but encreased in the reigne of King Henry untill Robert the eldest brother was taken prisoner in the field which put a period to all his
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
by the Soldiers and sometimes by every legion one whereby such siers were kindled as could not be quenched without much blood For these wars are most cruelly executed because the quarrel leaveth no middle state inter summum praecipitium between the highest honor and the deadliest downfall For these and divers other respects it hath been observed at most times in all nations and at all times in most that the royalty hath passed by succession accoâ—ding to propinquity of blood We read that â—tolomy who after the death of Alexander the great seazed upon Aegypt and part also of Arabia and of Africk lest that state to his youngest son but Trogus said and out of him Iustine that it was against the Law of Nations and that upon this occasion one of them did work the death of the other And therefore when afterward Ptolomy surnamed Physcon at the importunity of his Wife Cleopatra would have preferred his youngest son to the succession of his Kingdom Iustine saith that the People opposed themselves against it but Pausanias more probably affirmeth that they reversed his order after his death The same course was held in Italy by the Hetruscanes Latines and those Albanes from whom the Romans took their original Livy writeth that Procas King of the Albanes appointed Numitor to succeed in his estate but Amulius his younger brother did usurp it by force hereupon Dionysius Halicarnasseus saith that Amulius held the Kingdom against right because it appertained to his Elder brother Among the Graecians during the space of six hundred Years wherein they were governed by Kings we find but Timondas and Pittacus who were elected the one of Corinth the other of Negropont the residue held their states by order of succession as Thucidides affirmeth encountring therein the opinion of Aristotle Livy writeth that Perseus King of Macedon said that by the order of Nature the Law of Nations and the ancient custom of Macedony the eldest son was to succâ—ed in the Kingdom Diodorus Siculus and Iustine do report that by this custom Alexander succeeded his father Amyntas before his yonger brother Philip. Herodotus declareth that the same order was observed among the Trojans affirming that after the death of Priamus the Kingdom was not to devolve unto Alexander because Hector was before him in years The same also doth appeare by that which Virgil writeth Praeterea Sceptrum Ilione quod gesserat olim Maxima natarum Priami The Scepter which Ilione when she the state did stay The first daughter of Priamus with royal hand did sway Out of which place Servius Maurus doth collect that women also did use to govern But more plainly this custome of the Troians doth appear by that which Messala Corvinus writeth that Trojus had two sons Ilus and Assaracus and that Ilus by priviledge of his age succeeeded in the Kingdom The Persians also who for a long time held the reins of all the nations near unto them had the same order of succession as Zenophon witnesseth which is also confirmed by two famous histories one between Artaxerxes Cyrus whereof Plutarch maketh mention the other between Artabazanes Xerxes reported by Herodotus and Iustin wherein Artabazanes alledged that it was a custom among all men that the eldest son should first succeed Agathocles out of him Athenaeus do write that the Persians had a golden water for so they term it whereof it was capital for any man to drink but only the king and his eldest son Whither this water were drawn out of the River Euleus which invironeth the Tower Susis and the Temple of Diana whereof Pliny writeth that only the kings of Persia did drink or whether of Choaspis whose waters Herodotus doth report to have bin boiled and carried after the king in silver vessels or whether both these were one River I will neither determine nor discourse In Siria which is called Assiria as Herodotus writeth and also Phoenicia Palestina and Mesopotamia as appeareth by Pliny Eusebius and divers other the same custom is proved by that which Iustine and L. Florus do write that Demetrius having bin delivered by his brother Antiochus King of Siria for an hostage to the Romans and hearing of the death of Antiochus declared to the Senate in open assembly that as by the law of nations he had given place to his elder Brother so by the same law the right of succession was then cast upon him The Parthians who being thrice attempted by the Romans in the time of their chiefest both discipline and strength were able to bear themselves victorious did always acknowledge for their king the next of the blood of their first King Arsaces Among the Germans also who were of force to defeat five consulare armies of the Romans Tacitus affirmeth that the eldest Son did intirely succeed only the Horses did fall to the most valiant And that this was likewise the custom of the Iews it is evident by the whole History of their Kings especially where it is said that Ioram succeeded Iosaphat and the reason added because he was the eldest I should but burn day as the saying is in running further upon particulars Herodotus doth advow it to be a general custom among all men that the first in birth is next in succession Certain ages after him S. Hierome said that a Kingdom is due unto the eldest In late ages our selves may see that the Tartars Turks Persians and all the Asiaticks have no other form of constituting their Kings No other is followed in all the Countries of Africk In the west Indies no other is yet discovered Insomuch as when Frances Pizarre in the Conquest of Peru had slain Atibalippa the King thereof the people brake into shew some of joy all of contentment because he had made his way to the Kingdom by murthering of his Elder brother In Europe it is not long sinâ—e all the Monarchies were successive When the Empire of Almain was made elective it became in short time so either troublesome or base that divers Princes refused to accept it of late it hath been setled in one Family but hath as yet little increased eitheir in dignity or in power The people of Denmark Sweden Hungary and Boeme do chalenge to themselves a right of election but they accept their King by propinquity of bloud So they did in Polonia until the line of Iagello was worn out and then they elected for King Henry Duke of Aniou in France since which time they have always in the change of their Kings exposed their state to open danger of ruine Upon this both general and continual custom Boldus saith that Kingdoms are successive by the Law of Nations affirming further that always it hath been and always it shall be that the first born succeedeth in a Kingdom wherein he is either followed or accompanied with a fair Crie of all the choise
interpreters of both Laws as namely the Glossographer Iohan. Andreas Hostiensis Collect. Pet. Anchoranus Antonius Imola Card. Florentinus Abb. Panormitanus Oldradus Albericus Angelus Felinus Paul Castrensis Alexander Barbatius Franc. Curtius Guido Pape Card. Alexander Philip. Francus Iason Philippus Decius Carol. Ruinus Anto. Corsetta Ripa Calderine Alciate and many other of somwhat more ordinary name Who all with full voice do agree that in Kingdoms and other dignities â—hich cannot be either valued or divided but they are dismembred the eldest Son doth entirely succeed And this many of them do call the Law of all Nations derived from the order of nature and from the institution of God and confirmed by the Canon civil and other positive Laws For the Succession of Children is one of the primary precepts of nature whereby his mortality is in some sort repaired and his continuance perpetuated by his posterity But among all the Children nature seemeth to prefer the first born by imprinting in the mind of parents the greatest love and inclination towards them as divers of the authors before alleaged do affirm and as it may appear by that of the prophet Zacharie and they shall lament over him as men use to lament in the death of their first born and likewise by that which is said of David that he would not grieve his Son Ammon for that he loved him because he was his first born Hereupon Lyra and before him Saint Augustin and Saint Chrysostom do affirm that the last plague of the Egyptians which was the death of their first born was the most sharp and heavy unto them For nothing saith Saint Augustin is more dear than the first born Aristotle Plinie Aelian and Tzetzes do write that the same affection is also found in certain beasts And to this purpose is that which Herodotus reporteth that when the Lacedaemonians had received an oracle â—hat they should take for Kings the two sons of Aristodemus and Aegina but give most honor unto the eldest and they were ignorant which was eldest because the Mother and the Nurse refused to declare it they observed which of the children the mother did wash and feed first and thereby found out that Eristhenes was the eldest Lucian citeth the love of the first born as grown into a proverb Gregorie Nazianzene saith that all men have a sense thereof Saint Ambrose writeth that in this respect God called the People of Israel his first born for that they were not most ancient but best beloved Lastly S. Chrysostome affirmeth that the first born were to be esteemed more honorable than the rest And this natural precedence both in honor and in favor seemeth to be expresly ratified by God first where he said unto Cain of his brother Abel His desires shall be subject unto thee and thou shalt have dominion over him according to which institution when Iacob had bought his brothers right of birth Isaac blessed him in these words Be Lord over thy Brethren and lâ—t the sons of thy mother bow before thee Secondly where he forbiddeth the Father to disinherit the first Son of his double portion because by right of birth it is his due Thirdly where he maketh choice of the first born to be sanctified to himself And whereas God hath often preferred the youngest as Abel Isaac Iacob Iuda Phares Ephraim Moses David Solomon and others it was no other than that which Christ said that many that were last should be first and that which Saint Paul hath delivered that God hath chosen the weak and base and contemptible things of this world least any flesh should glory in his sight So hath Herodotus written how Artabanus the Persian in a complaining manner did confess that God delighted to depress those things that were high But if the first born dye before succession fall or if being possessed of the Kingdom he dye without issue his right of birth devolveth unto the next in blood and if he dyeth in like manner then unto the third and so likewise to the rest in order This is affirmed by Albericus and may be confirmed by that which Baldus saith that succession hath reference to the time of death and respecteth the priority which is then extant And again He is not said the first born in Law who dyeth before the fee openeth but he who at that time is eldest in life And this opinion is embraced by Alciate because as Celsus saith Primus is dicitur ante quem nemo sit He is first who hath none before him Iaco. Aretinus Cinus Albericus and Baldus do form this case There is a custom that the first born of the first marriage should succeed in a baronny a certain baron had three Wives by the first he had no Children by the other too many the first son of the second marriage shall succeed Because as the glossographer there saith the second marriage in regard of the third is accompted first Baldus doth extend it further that if he hath a son by the first marriage and he refuse the barony the first son by the second marriage shall succeed in his right and so he saith it was determined in the Kingdom of Apulia when Lewes the Kings eldest son was professed a friar And this decision is allowed by Alexander Oldradus and Antonius Corsetta and is proved by plain text of the Canon Law both where the second born is called first born when the first born hath given place and also where he is called the only son whose brother is dead But because it is a notorious custom that the nearest in blood doth succâ—ed altho perhaps removed in degree I will labor no more to load it with proof for who will proclaim that the sun doth shine But if we should now grant unto you which is a greater courtesie than with modesty you can require that no particular form of Government is natural what will you conclude thereof what inference can you hereupon enforce That thâ—re is no doubt but the People have power to choose and to change the fashion of Government and to limit the same with what conditions they please What Sir can you find no third But that either one form of Government is natural or that the People must always retain such liberty of power Have they no power to relinquish their power Is there no possibility that they may loose it Whether are you so ignorant to think as you speak or so deceitful to speak otherwise then you think There is no Authority which the People hath in matters of state but it may be either bound or streightned by three means The first is by cession or grant for so the Romans by the Law of royalty yeelded all their Authority in Government to the Prince Of this Law Vlpian maketh mention and Bodin reporteth that it is yet extant in Rome graven in stone So the People of Cyrene of Pergame and of Bithynia did submit themselves
to the Empire of the Romans So the Tartarians commit absolute power both over their lives and their livings to every one of their Emperors and so have our People many times committed to their King the Authority of the Parliament either generally or else for some particular case For it is held as a rule that any man may relinquish the Authority which he hath to his own benefit and favor Neither is he again at pleasure to be admitted to that which once he did think â—it to renounce And as a private man may altogether abandon his free estate and subject himself to servile condition so may a multitude pass away both their Authority and their liberty by publick consent The second is by prescription and custom which is of strength in all parts of the world least matters should always float in uncertainty and controversies remain immortal And that this Authority of the People may be excluded by prescription it is evident by this one reason which may be as one in a third place of Arithmetick in standing for a hundred Every thing may be prescribed wherein prescription is not prohibited But there is no Law which prohibiteth prescription in this case and therefore it followeth that it is permitted And generally custom doth not only interpret Law but correcteth it and supplyeth where there is no Law in so much as the common Law of England as well in publick as private controversies is no other a few maxims excepted but the common custom of the Realm Baldus saith that custom doth lead succession in principalities which Martinus adviseth to â—ix in memory because of the often change of Princes and the particular custom of every Nation is at this day the most usual and assured Law between the Prince and the Peâ—ple And this do the Emperors Honor us and Arcadius in these words command punctually to be observed Mos namque retinendus est fidelissimae vetustatis the custom of faithful Antiquity must be retained Which place is to this sense ballanced by Pau. Caestrensis Franc. Aretinus and Phil. Corneus who termeth it a moral text The like whereto is found also in the Canon law and noted by the Glossographer Archidiaconus Romanus and Cepola Neither were the Fathers of the Nicene Councel of other Opinion who thus decreed Let antient customs stand in strength Whereto also agreeth that old Verse of Ennius Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque Customs and men of oldest sort The Roman State do best support Which is cited by Saint Austin and esteemed by Cicero both for brevity and truth as an Oracle To the same sense Periander of Corinth said that old Laws and new Meats were fittest for use which saying Phavorinus in Gellius did in this manner a little vary Live after the passed manner speak after the present Hereto also pertaineth that edict of the censors mentioned by Suetonâ—us and Aul. Gellius Those things which are beside the custom and fashion of our Elders are neither pleasing nor to be adjudged right Of this point I shall have occasion more particularly hereafter to write The third means whereby the People may loose their Authority is by way of conquest For howsoever Saint Augustine and after him Alciate do disallow ambition of enlarging Empire and term Wars upon this cause great Theeveries Whereupon Lucane and his Uncle Seneca called Alexander the Great a great robber of the World yet there is no doubt but the sentence of victory especially if the War was undertaken upon good cause as the Conqueror being made his own Arbitrator will hardly acknowledge the contrary is a just title of acquisition reducing the vanquished their priviledges liberties and whole Estate under the discretion of him that is victorious Caesar saith He giveth all that denieth right Which sentence is approved by Covaruvias affirming that the victor maketh all which his sword toucheth to be his own So saith Baldus that he doth his pleasure upon the vanquished and again Caesar in the speech of Ariovistus it is the Law of Arms that the victorious should command those whom they have subdued even as they please Clemens Alexandrinus saith that the goods of Enemies are taken away by right of war Isocrates hath written that the Lacedaemonians did by title of victory in this sort maintain their right We hold this Land given by the Posterity of Hercules confirmed by the Oracle of Delphos the inhabitants thereof being overcome by War Which was not much unlike that which Iephte captain of Israel expostulated with the Ammonites Are not those things thine which Chamos thy God hath possessed but whatsoever the Lord our God hath conquered pertaineth unto us Yea God doth expresly give to the People of Israel the Cities which they should subdue some into full possession others into servitude and subjection By wâ—ich title Iacob also had given to Ioseph his partâ—ge among his brethren even the Laâ—d which he had taken from the Amorites with his sword and with his bow It was usual to the Romans and as Appian saith just to retain principal or direct Dominion in all things which they brought under the sway of their sword Brissonius hath collected certain examples of the form of yielding unto the Romans whereby all prophane and sacred all human and divine matters were submitted unto them Seeing therefore that the people may so many ways loose both their power and their right in affairs of state is not your ignorance adventurous so generally to affirm that if no one form of Government be natural there is no doubt but the people have power both to alter and limit the same as they please Can no Law no custom no Conquest restrain them Your pen doth range and your judgment rage beyond all compass and course of reaâ—on You should have said that there is no doubt but if by all or any of these means the right both of succession and governmâ—â—t be setled in one family according to prâ—â—â—â—quity and priority of blood the people may neither take away nor varie the same and if they do they commit iniustice they violate the law of nations whereby they expose themselvs not only to the infamie and hate of all men but to the revenge of those who will attempt upon them For it is not only lawful but honorable for any people either to right or reveng the breach of this Law against them which contemn it as monsters against them who know it not as beasts Saint Augustine saith If a City upon earth should decree some great mischiefs to be done by the decree of mankind it is to be destroyed And as in the state of one countrey any man may accuse upon a publick crime so in the state of the world any people may prosecute a common offence for as there is a civil band among all the People of one Nation so is there a natural Knot among all men in the
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
the other Let us compare then your boisterous Doctrine with that of the Apostles and ancient Fathers of the Church and we shall find that the one is like the rough Spirit which hurled the herd of Swine headlong into the Sea the other like the still and soft Spirit which talked with Elias Neither was the Devil ever able until in late declining times to possess the hearts of Christians with these cursed Opinions which do evermore beget a world of Murders Rapes Ruines and Desolations For tell me what if the Prince whom you perswade the People they have power to depose be able to make and maintain his Party as King Iohn and King Henry the Third did against their Barons What if other Princes whom it doth concern as well in honour to see the Law of Nations observed as also in policy to break those proceedings which may form Presidents against themselves do adjoyn to the side What if whilst the Prince and the People are as was the Frog and the Mouse in the heat of their Encounter some other Potentate play the Kite with them both as the Turk did with the Hungarians Is it not then a fine piece of policy which you do plot or is it not a gross errour to raise these dangers and to leave the defence to possibilities doubtful Go to Sirs go to there is no Christian Country which hath not by your devices been wrapped in Wars You have set the Empire on float with Bloud your Fires in France are not yet extinguished in Polonia and all those large Countries extending from the North to the East you have caused of late more Battels to be fought than had been in five hundred years before Your practices have heretofore prevailed against us of late years you have busied your selves in no one thing more than how to set other Christian Princes on our necks stirring up such store of Enemies against us as like the Grashoppers of Egypt might fill our houses and cover our whole land and make more doubt of room than of resistance Our own people also you have provoked to unnatural attempts you have exposed our Country as a Prey to them that will either invade or betray it supposing belike that you play Christ's part well when you may say as Christ did Think not that I came to send peace I came not to send peace but a sword But when by the power and providence of God all these attempts have rather shewn what good hearts you bear towards us than done us any great harm when in all these practices you have missed the mark now you do take another aim Now having no hope by extremity of Arms you endeavour to execute your malice by giving dangerous advice Now you go about to entangle us with Titles which is the greatest misery that can fall upon a State You pretend fair shews of Liberty and of Power Sed timeo Danaos dona ferentes We cannot but suspect the Courtesies of our Enemies The Power which you give us will pull us down the Liberty whereof you speak will fetter us in Bondage When Themistocles came to the Persian Court Artabanus Captain of the Guard knowing that he would use no Ceremony to their King kept him out of presence and said unto him You Grecians esteem us barbarous for honouring our Kings but we Persians esteem it the greatest honour to us that can be The like Answer will we frame unto you You Iesuits account it a bondage to be obedient unto Kings but we Christians account it the greatest means for our continuance both free and safe An Answer to the third Chapter which is intituled Of the great Reverence and respect due to Kings and yet how divers of them have been lawfully chastised by their Common-wealths for their misgovernment and of the good and prosperous success that God commonly hath given to the same and much more to the putting back of an unworthy Pretender THat Princes may be chastised by their Subjects your proofs are two One is drawn from certain Examples the other from the good success and Successors which usually have followed Surely it cannot be but that you stand in a strong conceit either of the authority of your Word or simplicity of our Judgment otherwise you could not be perswaded by these slender Threads to draw any man to your Opinion Of the force of Examples I have spoken before there is no Villany so vile which wanteth example and yet most of the Examples which you do bring are either false or else impertinent For there have been divers States wherein one hath born the name and title of King without power of Majesty As the Romans in the time of their Consular Estate had always a Priest whom they entitled King whose office consisted in certain Ceremonies and Sacrifices which in former times could not be performed but by their Kings Likewise the Lacedemonians after Lycurgus had formed their Government retained two Kings who had no greater stroke in matters of State than a single Voice as other Senators Such were in Caesars time many petty Kings of Gaul who as Ambiorix King of Leige confessed were subject to their Nobility and questionable by them Such are now the Emperours of Almain because the Puissance and Majesty of the Empire pertaineth to the States who are sworn to the Empire it self and not to the person of the Emperour Such are also the Dukes of Venice the Soveraignty of which State is setled in the Gentlemen In these and such-like Governments the Prince is not Soverain but subject to that part of the Commonwealth which retaineth the Royalty and Majesty of State whether it be the Nobility or Common People and therefore your Examples drawn from them is nothing to our purpose Concerning success it cannot be strange unto you that by the secret yet just Judgement of God divers evil actions are carried with appearance of good success The Prophet David said that his treadings had almost slip't by seeing the wicked to flourish in prosperity The Prophet Ieremiah seemed also to stagger upon this point and it hath always been a dangerous stone in the way of the Godly whereat many have stumbled and some fallen Besides it ordinarily happeneth that good Princes succeed Tyrants partly because they are so indeed as being instructed to a better manage of Government both by the miserable life of their Predecessors and by the ugly infamy which remaineth after their death partly because by means of the Comparison they both seem and are reported to be far better than they are Hereupon Lampridius saith of Alexander Severus I may also say that Alexander was a good Prince by fear for that Heliogabalus his Predecessor was both an evil Prince and also massacred and slain Seeing therefore the reason is so manifest wherefore good Princes should succeed Tyrants is it not rashness is it not impudence is it not impiety for us to wade with unclean feet into God's
secret Counsels unknown to the Angels and to justifie upon this event the Parricide of any Prince For my part I know not whether you shew your self more presumptuous in entering into this observation or in pursuing it more idle and impure I will pass over your protestation of Respect and Obedience due unto Princes Protest what you please we will take you for no other than a vile kind of vermine which if it be permitted to creep into the bowels of any State will gnaw the Heart-strings thereof in sunder This you manifest by the coarse comparison which presently you annex that as a natural Body hath authority to cure the Head if it be out of tune and reason to cut it off oftentimes if it were able to take another so a body Politick hath power to cure or cut off the Head if it be unsound But what either Will or Power hath any part of the Body in it self What either Sense for the one or Motion for the other which proceedeth not altogether from the Head Where is the Reason seated which you attribute to the Body both in judging and curing the infirmities of the Head Certain it is that in your cutting-cure you deal like a foolish Physician who finding a Body half taken and benumb'd with a Palsie cutteth off that part to cure the other and so make sure to destroy both You suppose belike that to enter into greater perils is the onely remedy of present Dangers I omit to press many points of this Comparison against you because Comparisons do serve rather to illustrate than enforce and I know not what assertion you might not easily make good if such senceless prating might go for proof I come now to your particular Examples whereof the first is of King Saul whom you affirm to be deprived and put to death for his disobedience Saul deprived and put to death I never heard that any of his Subjects did ever lift up one thought against him Dreamer you will say he was slain by the Philistines Good but who deprived him It was God you say who did deprive him You must pardon us if upon the suddain we do not conceive the mystery of your meaning Your words of deprivation and putting to death do rather import a judicial proceeding against him than that God delivered him to be vanquished by his Enemies in the Field But what is this to dispossessing by Subjects Yes you say because whatsoever God hath put in ure in his Commonwealth may be practised by others Why but then also good Princes may be deposed by their Subjects because God delivered Iosiah to be slain by the Egyptians You Firebrands of Strife you Trumpets of Sedition you Red Horses whose sitters have taken peace from the Earth how impudently do you abuse the Scriptures how do you defile them with your filthy Fingers It is most certain that David knew both because Samuel told him and because he had the Spirit of Prophesie that God had rejected Saul and designed him to be King in his place yet his Doctrine was always not to touch the Lords Anointed whereto his Actions were also answerable For when Saul did most violently persecute him he defended himself no otherwise than by Flight During this pursuit Saul fell twice into his power once he did not onely spare but protect him and rebuke the Pretorian Soldiers for their negligent watch The other time his Heart did smite him for that he had cut away the lap of his garment Lastly he caused the Messenger to be slain who upon request and for pity had furthered as he said the death of that sacred King We have a Precept of Obedience which is the mould wherein we ought to fashion our actions God onely is superiour to Princes who useth many instruments in the execution of his justice but his authority he hath committed unto none Your second Example is of King Amon who was slain as you write by his own people because he walked not in the ways of the Lord. This is somewhat indeed if it be true let us turn to the Text Amon was twenty two years old when be began to reign c. and he did evil in the sight of the Lord c. and his servants conspired against him and slew him in his house and the people smote all those who conspired against King Amon and made Josiah his son King in his stead But this is very different from that which you report Amon was slain by his Servants and not by the people who were so far from working that they severely revenged his death And although Amon was evil yet the Scripture layeth not his evil for the motive whereupon his Servants slew him The Devil himself in alleadging the Scripture used more honesty and sincerity if I may so term it than you For he cited the very words wresting them onely to a crooked sence but you change the words of the Scripture you counterfeit God's coyn you corrupt the Records which he hath left us I will now shake off all respect of civility towards you and tell you in flat and open terms that as one part of your Assertion is true that good Kings succeeded Saul and Amon so the other part that either they were or in right could have been deprived and put to death by their Subjects it is a sacrilegious a loggerheaded lye Of your Example of Romulus I have spoken before I have declared also how the Romans presently after the expelling of their Kings and for that cause were almost overwhelmed with the weight of War being beaten home to the very Gates of their City And had not Chocles by a miracle of Manhood sustained the shock of the Enemies whilst a Bridg was broken behind him the Town had been entred and their State ruined And whereas you attribute the inlargement of the Empire which hapned many Ages after to this expelling of their Kings you might as well have said that the rebellion against King Iohn was the cause of the Victories which we have since had in France I have before declared that the state of the Romans under their Consuls was popular rather in shew than in deed This shew began also to end when by the Law Valeria L. Sylla was established Dictator for four and twenty years After this the Empire did mightily increase until the reign of Trajane at which time all Authors agree that it was most large and yet far short of your wandring Survey not half Fifteen thousand miles in compass In your Example of Caesar I never saw more untruths crowded together in fewer words you say he broke all Laws both Humane and Divine that is one his greatest Enemies did give of him a most honourable testimony You say he took all Government into his hands alone that is two the people by the Law Servia elected him perpetual Dictator You make his death to be an act of the State that is three for they who slew him
were both declared and pursued by Decree of the State for publick Enemies of whom not any one either died a natural death or lived three years after it was further decreed that the Court where he was slain should be stopped up that the Ides of March should be called parricidium and that the Senate should never be assembled upon that day You say that Augustus was preferred in his place that is four and all within the compass of six Lines Augustus was never chosen Dictator Suetonius writeth that he entreated the people upon his knee not to charge him with that Office But Augustus Antonius and Lepidus did first knit in Arms by the name of Triumviri to revenge the death of Iulius Caesar whereupon a long cruel and doubtful War was set up which continued the space of twenty years first between these three and the Murtherers of Caesar then between Lepidus and the other two lastly between Augustus and Antonius and this was the sweet success of the murther of Caesar. Augustus after his Victory was made perpetual Tribune as Suetonius hath written Dio saith that he was freed from the power of the Laws as Pompey also had been before him Tacitus addeth that the people having their hearts broken with broils permitted him to rise into rule and to draw by degrees the whole Authority of the State into his hands And so it seemeth that the Royal Law was not yet established by which the people gave over their power in Government Whereupon some make good the Sentence which the Senate gave against Nero because the Soveraignty was not then by any express Act setled in the Emperour But where you bring the Succession of Vespasian as a good success of this Sentence against Nero it is a wild and witless untruth Galba succeeded next after Nero who was slain in a sedition raised by Otho Otho again was overcome in field by Vitellius whereupon he slew himself Lastly Vitellius was overthrown and slain by the Captains of Vespasian who was the fourth Emperour after Nero These Intestine Wars these open Battles fought to the full this slaughter of Emperours which you term Interludes were the immediate success after the death of Nero. You Fiends of Hell whose Voices are Lightning and Thunder whose breathing is nothing but Sword Fire Rages and Rebellions the encountring of Armies the butchery of millions of men the Massacre of Princes you account Interludes These are your pleasures these your recreations I hope all Christian-Commonwealths will bear an eye over your inclination and keep out both your persons and perswasions from turning their State into an open Stage for the acting of these Interludes You continue your base boldness in affiring that the Senate procured the death of Domitian that they requested the Souldiers to kill Heliogabalus that they invited Constantine to come and do justice upon Maxentius this broken kind of disguising is familiar unto you to make such violences as have often prevailed against excellent Princes to seem to be the act of the whole State And whereas you bring the succession of Alexander Severus for a good success of the murther of Heliogabalus being the rarest Prince you say that ever the Romans had you might have alleadged any Author in proof thereof better than Herodian who writeth of him in this manner Alexander did beaâ— the name and Ensigns of the Empire but the administration of Affairs and government of the State did rest upon women And further he writeth that by his slackness and cowardise the Roman Army was defeated by the Persians and finally that for his want of courage he was slain by his own Souldiers By this we may see that you go blindfold being so far from caring that many times you scarce know what you write Your markable Example as you term it of the change of the Empire from the West to the East from Constantine the sixth to Charles King of France doth mark out nothing more unto us than your soundred judgment The question is not what one forrain Prince may do against another but what Subjects may do against their Soveraign This is the point of controversie here you must close and not traverse about in discourses impertinent The change of the Kingdom of France from Childeric to Pepin your own Author Girard affirmeth to be both an ambitious and fraudulent usurpation wherein Pepin used the reverence of Religion as a Mantle to cover his Impiety and Rebellion The matters which he objected against Childerick were two First his insufficiency the ordinary pretence of most Rebellions but Girard saith that the ancient custom of the French was to love and honour their Kings whether sufficient or unable worthy or weak and that the name of King was esteemed sacred by whomsoever it was born Secondly he objected that his Subjects were conditionally sworn unto him and this also Girard writeth to be a forced and cautelous interpretation violently streining the words of their Oath to his advantage and indeed if the Oath of the people had been conditional what needed they to procure a Dispensation for the same This was the first act saith he whereby the Popes took occasion to set in their foot of Authority for transporting of Kingdoms from one Race to another which growing to strength hath filled all Christian Countries with confusion and tumult Likewise the change of that Kingdom from the Line of Pepin to the Line of Capet was a meer violence and intrusion and so it was acknowledged by Endes Earl of Paris the first of that Family who did usurp and for that cause he was constrained after two years reign to quit the Crown and to give place unto Charles the lawful Heir And when Robert brother unto Endes did enter into armâ— to recover that which his Brother once held he was beaten down and slain by the faithful Subjects of King Charles Hugh the son of Robert nourished this ambition but Hugh Capet his son with better both opportunity and success but no better right did accomplish the Enterprise For Girard calleth him an Usurper and Charles Duke of Lâ—â—rain the true Heir to the Crown Betweeâ— these two as in all usurpations it is usual War was raised but by the unsearchable Judgment of God the Duke of Orleans was cast to the ground And there is little doubt but if he had prevailed Orleans had beeâ— at this day a Member of the Crown of France The like answer may be given to your Example of Suintilla and this beside that the Kingdom of the Goths in Spain was not theâ— setled in succession and chiefly during the Reign of Victeric Gundemir Sisebuth Suintilla Sicenand Cinthilla and Tulca The History of Alphonso another of your Examples standeth thus Alphonso had a son call'd Ferdinand who died during the life of his father and left two young sons behind him After the death of Ferdinand his younger Brother Sancho practised with D. Lope Diaz de
the insurrection of Iehu and such like we are bound to the Law and not to the Example God hath given us a natural Law to prefer the first-born he hath often made choice of the youngest because he commonly worketh greatest effects by means not onely weak but extraordinary as it appeareth by the birth of Isaak But that these special Elections of God are not proposed for imitation to us hereby it is evident because they have been for the most part without defect in the one or demerit in the other And especially in this example of Iacob and Esau St. Paul saith that it was not grounded upon their works but upon the will and pleasure of God for before they had done good or evil before they were born God said The eldest shall serve the youngest Which if we might imitate the priviledge of birth were given in vain For your device in joyning Election to Succession whereby one of them should remedy the difficulties of the other it is a meer Utopical conceit What else shall I term it an imposture of State a Dream an Illusion fit only to surprise the judgement of the weak and ignorant multitude These toys are always hatched by the discoursive sort of men rather than the active being matters more in imagination than in use and herein two respects do principally oppose against you The first is for that in most Nations of the world the people have lost all power of Election and Succession is firmly setled in one discent as before I have declared The second is for that more fiery factions are hereby kindled than where Succession or Election are meer without mixture For where one claimeth the Crown by Succession and another possesseth it by Title of Election there not a disunion only of the people not a division in arms but a cruel throat-cutting a most immortal and mercyless butchery doth usually ensue It is somewhat inconvenient I grant to be governed by a Prince either impotent or evil but it is a greater inconvenience by making a breach into this high point of State to open a way to all manner of ambitions perjuries cruelties and spoil whereto the nature of the common-people would give a great furtherance who being weak in Wisdom violent in Will soon weary of quiet always desirous of change and most especially in matters of State are easily made serviceable to any mans aspiring desires This I have manifested before by the examples of King Edward and King Richard both surnamed the Second who were not insupportable either in nature or in rule and yet the people more upon wantonness than for any want did take an unbridled course against them And thus is your high Policy nothing else but a deep deceipt thus whilst you strive with the wings of your wit to mount above the Clouds of other mens conceit you sink into a sea of absurdities and errours After this you determine two questions The first is What respect is to be attributed to propinquity of bloud only Whereto you answer that it is the principal circumstance which leadeth us to the next Succession of the Crown if other circumstances and conditions do â—oncur which were appointed at the same time when the Law of Succession was established Assuredly you can never shew either when or by whom this Law of Succession was first instituted except perhaps by some Nimrod when he had brought the neck of a people under his sword at which time what conditions he would set down to be required from his Successour any ordinary judgment may conjecture at ease Well since you set us to seek for proof of this to that which you have written before I will also send you back to the same place for your answer The second question is What interest a Prince hath to his Kingdom before he be Crowned This you resolve by certain comparisons and first you write that it is the same which the German Emperour hath before his Coronation But that is so large that some Emperours have never been Crowned others have deferred it for many years among which Crantzius writeth that Otho the First received the Crown of the Empire in the eight and twentieth year of his Reign And yet is not this comparison full to the question propounded because in elective States there is not held one perpetual continuance of Royalty as is in those that are successive And Panormitane saith That an argument a similibus is not good if any difference can be assigned Much more unfitly do you affirm that it is no greater than a Mayor of London hath in his Office before he hath taken his Oath For it is odiously absurd to compare the Authority of an absolute Prince by succession to the Authority of an Officer both elective and also subject But it is the example of marriage you say whereby this matter is made more plain for as in this contract there is an espousal by promise of a future act and a perfect marriage by yielding a present consent the first is when both parties do mutually promise that they will The second that they do take one the other for Husband and Wife So an Heir apparent by propinquity of blood is espoused only to the Commonwealth and married afterward at his Coronation by Oaths of either party and by putting on the Ring and other Wedding-garments But how were Kings married in former ages how are they now married in those Countrys where they have neither Ring nor Wedding-garment nor also any Oath What is every Office and Degree which is taken with Ceremony to be esteemed likewise a Marriage Or if you will have Coronation onely to be a Marriage what else can it resemble but the publick celebration of Matrimony between man and woman which addeth nothing to the substance of contract but onely manifesteth it to the world These pitiful proofs naked of authority empty of sence deserve rather to be excused than answered I will help therefore in some sort to excuse them They are the best that your both starved cause and conceit can possibly afford and you have also some fellows in your folly Heliogabalus did solemnly joyn the statues of the Sun and of the Moon in marriage together Nero was married to a man and took also a man to his Wife The Venetians do yearly upon Ascention-day by a Ring and other ceremonies contract marriage with the Sea But now in earnest men do die whensoever it pleaseth God to call them but it is a Maxime in the Common-Law of England Rex nunquam moritur The King is always actually in life In France also the same custom hath been observed and for more assurance it was expresly enacted under Charles the fifth That after the death of any King his eldest Son should incontinently succeed For which cause the Parliament-Court of Paris doth accompany the funeral-obsequies of those that have been their Kings not in mourning attire but in Scarlet the true
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
the ten Tribes it is said that in the Cities of Iudah Rehoboam did Reign still implying thereby that in the other Cities he reigned before Again they are said to have rebelled against the house of David And lastly Rehoboam raised all the strength of Iudah and Benjamin to bring the Kingdom again unto him Further you write that ten Tribes refused to admit Rehoboam but the Scripture saith that they rebelled What did God only allow hereof after it was done did he only permit the people to do it The Scripture testifieth that it was his Decree that it was his Deed and that he declared his Will by Ahijah the Prophet during the life of Solomon and for his sins But these special Warrants do not constitute a Law they serve onely to make good the particular actions for which they are directed and not to justifie another the like Lastly St. Paul saith that all things hapned to the Jews in figure upon which place divers Expositors have noted that the State of the Jews was a figure of the Church of Christ but that it was an example and patern of all other States that should ensue it shall be ranged among your cast conceits I refer me now to the judgment of any man who taketh not pleasure to beguile himself whether you do not by art and trumpery manifestly abuse us partly by incapacity and partly by deceit either corrupting or confounding whatsoever you take in hand Your humour both discontented and unquiet hath armed your mind with bloudy desires which have edged you on to put fewel to those flames which you should endeavour to quench though it were with your bloud I will not stand upon the particular Examples of Spain as well for that the matter is both tedious and to little purpose as also for that we have small conformity with the Customs of that Nation Onely thus much in general We acknowledge that in ancient times the Kingdom of Spain was Elective and therefore your Examples drawn from thence are nothing pertinent The Examples of latter times are both few and unjust carried onely by Faction and by Force as Garabay testifieth of your Example of Aurelio and as by the Example of D. Sancho el Bravo I have declared before But you account Faction to be the Commonwealth and Violence Justice when it may make to the furtherance of your affairs The History of D. Berenguela I will briefly report rather for the respect which guided the Castilians than that I allow it for Right which they did Henry had two Sisters Donna Blanch the eldest married to Lewes the eighth King of France and Berenguela the youngest married to Alphonso King of Leon. Henry dying without Issue the Castilians feared if they should submit themselves unto Blanch that their State being less than the State of France would be made a Member thereof and governed as a Province and not as a Kingdom And therefore they did rather chuse to profess Allegiance to the Lady Berenguela by which means the Kingdom of Leon was afterwards annexed unto Castile to the great increase both of dignity and assurance to them both I have followed herein your own Authors not being ignorant that others of better name do write that Berenguela was the eldest Sister as I shall have occasion hereafter to declare but for the present let it be as you please and let us weigh our own wisdoms not onely in straining but in forging Titles to incur those mischiefs which the Castilians rejected a lawful Title to avoid And this was also one of the Motives of the Revolt of Portugal which is your last Example although it had also as Garabay writeth a concurrence of Right For Ferdinand King of Portugal by his Procurators the Bishop of Ebora and others did both contract and solemnize espousals with Elianor Daughter of Peter King of Aragon But being entred into War with Henry King of Castile and finding himself at some disadvantage he forsook the King of Aragons Daughter and contracted himself to Elianor Daughter to the King of Castile upon very beneficial Conditions for his State Afterward falling into fancy with one of his Subjects named Elianor Telles de Meneses Wife to a Nobleman called Lorenzo Vasques de Aounna he took her as his Wife and enforced her Husband to avoid the Realm and had by her one onely Daughter named Beatrix who was joyned in marriage to Iohn King of Castile After the death of the King of Portugal her Father the King of Castile in the right of his Wife laid claim to that Realm and was accordingly acknowledged by the chief of the Nobility and Prelates and in particular by D. Iohn Master of Avis her Fathers base Brother who was then the most forward man in her favour But afterwards falling into quarrel and having slain the Count de Oren he stirred the people against the Queen and compelled her to quit the City And after divers Outrages and Murthers committed upon the Bishop of Lisbon an Abbess and many others he was first made Governour of Portugal and then proceeding further in an Assembly of his Party gathered at Coimbra he was made King Garabay writeth that the chiefest objection against Beatrix was because her Mother was not King Ferdinand 's lawful Wife And I believe you also that they had a reflex not to lose the dignity of their Kingdom as now they have done and be made subject to the cruel both Avarice and Ambition of a more potent State An Answer to the eighth Chapter which is entituled Of divers other examples out of the States of France and England for proof that the next in Blood are sometimes put back from Succession and how God hath approved the same with good Success YOur Examples of France to which Nation we are more near both in situation and Laws I will run over with a swift course Of the Change which twice hath hapned in the whole Race of the Kings of France I have spoken before You seem also either to threaten or presage the third Change from the King who now reigneth and other Princes of the House of Bourbon It was your desire you applyed your endeavour with all the power and perswasions you could make You knit divers of the Nobility in a treacherous League against him you incensed the People you drew in Forreign Forces to their assistance by which means the Realm fell daily into change of distresse the men of Arms making all things lawful to their Lust. The Good did fear the Evil expect no place was free either from the rage or suspition of Tumult few to be trusted none assured all things in commixtion the Wisest too weak the Strongest too simple to avoid the Storm which brake upon them the People Joyning to their miserable Condition many Complaints That they had been abused by you in whose Directions they found nothing but Obstinacie and Rashness two dangerous Humours to lead a great
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
your imaginary Audience to applaud your Opinion as worshipfully wise you proceed to declare what ought chiefly to be regarded in furthering or hindering any Prince towards the Crown Three Points you say are to be required in every Prince Religion Chivalry and Justice And putting aside the two last as both handled by others and of least importance you assume onely to treat of Religion wherein either Errour or Want doth bring inestimable Damage to any State You draw a long Discourse That the highest End of every Commonwealth is the Service and Worship of God and consequently That the Care of Religion is the principal Charge which pertaineth to a King And therefore you conclude That whatsoever Prince doth not assist his Subjects to attain this End omitteth the chief part of his Charge and committeth High Treason against his Lord and is not fit to hold that Dignity though he perform the other two Parts never so well And that no Cause can so justly clear the Conscience whether of the People or of particular Men in resisting the Entrance of any Prince as if they judge him faulty in Religion This is neither nothing nor all which you say In Elective States the People ought not to admit any Man for King who is either cold or corrupt in Religion but if they have invested such a one with Sovereign Authority they have no Power at pleasure to remove him In Successive Kingdoms wherein the People have no Right of Election it is not lawful for Private Men upon this cause to offer to impeach eithâ—r the Entrance or Continuance of that King which the Laws of the State do present unto them not onely because it is forbidden of God for that is the least part of your regard but because disorderly Disturbance of a setled Form in Government traineth after it more both Impieties and Dangers than hath ever ensued the Imperfections of a King I will come more close to the Point in controversie and dispel those foggy Reasons which stand between your Eye and the Truth There are two Principal Parts of the Law of God the one Moral or Natural which containeth three Points Sobriety in our selves Justice towards others and generally also Reverence and Piety towards God The other is Supernatural which containeth the true Faith of the Mysteries of our Salvation and the special kind of Worship that God doth require The first God hath delivered by the Ministry of Nature to all Men the second he doth partly reveal and partly inspire to whom he pleases and therefore although most Nations have in some sort observed the one yet have they not onely erred but failed in the other During the time of the Law this peculiar Worship of God was appropriate onely to the People of Israel in a corner Kingdom of the World The flourishing Empires of the Assyrians Medes Persians Aegyptians Graecians Syrians and Romans either knew it not or held it in contempt The Israelitâ—s were almost always in subjection under these both Heathen and Tyrannical Governments and yet God by his Prophets enjoyned them Obedience affirming That the Hearts of Kings were in his Hands and that they were the Officers of his Justice the Executioners of his Decrees In the time of Grace the true Mysteries both of Worship and Belief were imparted also to other Nations but the ordinary Means to propagate the same was neither by Policy nor by Power When St. Peter offered provident Counsel as he thought unto Christ advising him to have care of himself and not to go to Hierusalem where the Iews sought to put him to death Christ did sharply reprove him for it When he did draw his Sword and therewith also drew Blood in defence of Christ he heard this Sentence They that take the sword shall perish with the sword Christ armed his Apostles onely with Fiery Tongues by force whereof they maintained the Field against all the Stratagems and Strength in the World And when Princes did not onely reject but Persecute their Doctrine they taught their Subjects obedience unto them they did both encounter and overcome them not by resisting but by persisting and enduring This course seemeth strange to the discourse of Reason to plant Religion under the Obedience of Kings not only careless thereof but cruel against it but when we consider that the Jews did commonly forsake God in prosperity and seek him in distress that the Church of Christ was more pure more zealous more entire I might also say more populous when she travelled with the Storme in her Face then when the wind was either prosperous or calme that as S. Agustine saithâ—s Want or weakness of faith is usually Chastised with the Scourges of tribulations We may learn thereby no further to examin but to admire and embrace the unsearchable wisdom and will of God Seeing therefore that this is appointed the odinary means both to establish and encrease Religion may we adventure to exchange it with humane devices Is it the Servants duty either to contradict or dispute the Masters commandement is there any more ready way to prove an Heretick then in being a curious questionist with God is he bound to yield to any man a reason of his will It is more then presumption it is plain Rebellion to oppose our reason against his order against his decree It standeth also upon common Rules That which is contrary to the nature of a thing doth not help to strengthen but destroy it It is foolish to add external stay to that which is sufficient to support it self It is senceless to attempt that by force which no force is able to effect That which hath a proper Rule must not be directed by any other And this was both the Profession and practice of the antient Fathers of the Church as I have declared before whereto I will here add that which S. Ambrose saith Let every man bear it patiently if it be not extorted from the Emperor which he would be loath the Emperor should extort from him And lest they might be interpreted not to mean obedience as well to succession as to present Power they alledge that which the Captive Jews of Babylon did write to the tributary Jews which were at Ierusalem to pray for the life not only of Nebuchodonosor the King of Babylon but also of Baltasar his Son the next Successor to his Estate But in latter times Innocentius hath taught and is also seconded by Castrensis that love is a just cause to move armes for matters of Religion Under which pretence divers men have pursued their own private purposes and ends Guicciardine writeth that Firdinand who was called the catholick did cover all his covetous and ambitious desires with the honest and holy vail of religion the like doth Iovius report of Charles V. Emperour Paulus Emilius writeth thus of all every man professeth his war to be holy every man termeth his enemies impious sanctity and piety is