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
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 Prince hereby affected the person is both tyed and touched in honour the authority ceaseth not if performances do fail Of this sort was that which you report of Trajan who in delivering the Sword to his Governors would say If I reign justly then use it for me if otherwise then use it against me But where you adde that these are the very same words in effect which Princes do use at their Coronations pardon me for it is fit I should be moved you will find it to be a very base lye Of this nature was that also which the same Trajan did to encourage his Subjects to do the like in taking an Oath to observe the Laws which Pliny the younger did account so strange as the like before had not been seen But afterward Theodoric did follow that fact whereupon Cassiodorus saith Ecce Trajani nostri clarum seculis reparamus exemplum jurat vobis per quem juratis We repair the famous example of Trajan he sweareth to you by whom you swear So when King Henry the Fifth was accepted for Successor to the Crown of France he made promise to maintain the Parliament in the liberties thereof And likewise divers Princes do give their faith to maintain the priviledges of the Church and not to change the Laws of the Realm which Oath is interpreted by Baldus Panormitane and Alexander to extend no further than when the Laws shall be both profitable and just because Justice and the common benefit of Subjects is the principal point both of the Oath and Duty of a Prince whereto all other clauses must be referred And now to your Examples First because in all the rank of the Hebrew Kings you cannot find either Condition or Oath not in the ancient Empires and Kingdoms of the world not usually in the flourishing time of the Roman State both under Heathen and Christian Emperours because these times are too pure for your purpose you fumble forth a dull Conjecture That forsomuch as the first Kings were elected by the People it is like that they did it upon conditions and assurances for themselves That the first Kings received not their Authority from the people I have manifested before and yet your inference hereupon is no other than if you should sue in some Court for a Legacy alleadging nothing for your intent but that it is like the Testator should leave you something in which case it is like I suppose that your Plea would be answered with a silent scorn After a few loose Speeches which no man would stoop to gather together you bring in the example of Anastasius the first Emperour of Constantinople of whom the Patriarch Euphemius required before his Coronation a Confession of the Faith in writing wherein he should promise to innovate nothing And further he promised to take away certain Oppressions and to give Offices without money Let us take things as they are and not speak upon idle imagination but agreeable to sence What either Condition or Restraint do you find in these words Condition they do not form because in case of failance they do not make the Authority void neither do they make Restraint because they contain no point whereunto the Law of God did not restrain him All this he was bound to perform without an Oath and if he were a thousand times sworn he was no more but bound to perform it even as if a Father should give his word to cloath and feed his Child or the Husband to love his Wife or any man to discharge that duty which God and Nature doth require It is true that Anastasius was both a wicked man and justly punished by God for the breach of his Faith but his Subjects did never challenge to be free therefore from their Allegiance The same Answer may be given to the Promise which Michael the first gave to Nicephorus the Patriarch That he would not violate the Ordinances of the Church nor embrue his hands with innocent bloud especially if you take the word Ordinances for matters necessary to be believed but if you take it in a larger sence then have I also declared in the beginning of this Chapter how far the Promise doth extend Your next Example is of the Empire of Almain from whence all that you object doth fall within this circle After the death of Charles the Great the Empire was held by Right of Succession until his Line was determined in Conrade the First After whose death it became Elective first in Henry Duke of Saxony then in Otho his son and afterwards in the rest from whom notwithstanding no other promise was wrested but the discharge of that duty which they were informed or rather threatned that God would severely exact at their hands But as in all Elective States it usually happeneth at every new change and choice the Emperour was deplumed of some of his Feathers until in the end he was made naked of Authority the Princes having drawn all power to themselves So by degrees the Empire was changed from a Monarchy to a pure Aristocracy the Emperour bearing the Title thereof but the Majesty and Puissance remaining in the States During which weakness of the Emperour some points were added to his Oath which seemed to derogate from the soveraignty of his estate But what is this to those Princes who have retained their dignity without any diminution either of Authority or of Honour The like may be said of Polonia which not many hundred years since was erected into a Kingdom and although the States did challenge therein a right of Election yet did it always pass according to propinquity of bloud and was esteemed a soveraign Monarchy until after the death of Casimire the Great when Lodovicus his Nephew King of Hungary rather greedy than desirous to be King also of Polonia did much abase the Majesty thereof Yet falling afterward into the Line of Iagello who married one of the daughters of Lodowiek it recovered the ancient both dignity and strength But when that Line also failed in Sigismond Augustus the last Male of that Family the States elected Henry Duke of Anjou for their King with this clause irritant That if he did violate any point of his Oath the people should owe him no Allegiance But whereas you report this as the usual Oath of the Kings of Polonia you deserve to hear the plainest term of untruth In the Kingdom of Spain you distinguish two times one before the Conquest thereof by the Moors the other after it was recovered again by the Christians I acknowledge a difference in these two times for that in the one the Right of the Kingdom was Elective in the other it hath always remained Successive insomuch as Peter Belluga a diligent Writer of the Rights of Arragon doth affirm that the people have no power in electâ—on of the King except in case the Line should fail Concerning the matter in controversie you affirm that the Kings did swear
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
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
hold it more worthy to be considered that these disorders spent England a sea of bloud In the end you conclude that all these deprivations of Princes were lawful Nay by your favour if you sweat out your brains you shall never evince that a fact is lawful because it is done Yes you say for otherwise two great inconveniences would follow One that the acts of those that were put in their place should be void and unjust The other that none who now pretend to these Crowns could have any Title for that they descended from them who succeeded those that were deprived You deserve now to be basted with words well steeped in Vinegar and Salt but I will be more charitable unto you and leave bad speeches to black mouths For the first the possession of the Crown purgeth all defects and maketh good the acts of him that is in Authority although he wanteth both capacity and right And this doth Vlpian expresly determine upon respect as he saith to the common good For the other point the Successors of an Usurper by course and compass of time may prescribe a right if they who have received wrong discontinue both pursuit and claim Panormitaneâ— saith Successor in Dignitate potest praescribere non abstante vitio sui Praedecessoris A Successor in Dignity may prescribe notwithstanding the fault of his Predecessor Otherwise causes of War should be immortal and Titles perpetually remain uncertain Now then for summary collection of all that you have said your Protestations are good your Proofs light and loose your Conclusions both dangerous and false The first doth savour of God the second of Man the third of the Devil An Answer to the fourth Chapter which beareth title Wherein consisteth principally the lawfulness of proceeding against Princes which in the former Chapter is mentioned What interest Princes have in their Subjects goods or lives How Oaths do bind or may be broken of Subjects towards their Princes and finally the difference between a good King and a Tyrant HEre you close with Bellaie upon two points First whether a King is subject to any Law Secondly whether all Temporalities are in propriety the King's But because these questions do little pertain to our principal Controversie I will not make any stay upon them it sufficeth that we may say with Seneca Omnia Rex imperio possidel singuli domino The King hath Empire every man his particular propriety in all things After this you proceed further to make ood that the Princes before-mentioned were lawfully deposed and that by all Law both Divine and Humane Natural National and Positive Your cause is so bad that you have need to set a bold countenance upon it But what Divine Laws do you alleadge You have largely before declared you say that God doth approve the form of Government which every Commonwealth doth choose as also the Conditions and Statutes which it doth appoint unto her Prince I must now take you for a natural lyar when you will not forbear to belye your self you never proved any such matter and the contrary is evident that sometimes entire Governments often Customs and Statutes of State and very commonly accidental actions are so unnatural and unjust that otherwise than for a punishment and curse we cannot say that God doth approve them We have often heard that the Church cannot erre in matters of Faith but that in matter of Government a Common-wealth cannot erre it was never I assure my self published before But let us suppose supposal is free that God alloweth that form of Government which every Commonwealth doth choose Doth it therefore follow that by all Divine Laws Princes may be deposed by their Subjects These broken pieces will never be squared to form strong argument But wherefore do not you produce the Divine Canons of Scripture Surely they abhor to speak one word in your behalf yea they do give express sentence against you as I have shewed before Well let this pass among your least escapes in making God either the Author or Aider of Rebellion you alleadge no other Humane Law but that Princes are subject to Law and Order I will not deny but there is a duty for Princes to perform But how prove you that their Subjects have power to depose them if they fail In this manner As the Common-wealth gave them their Authority for the common good so it may also take the same away if they abuse it But I have manifested before both that the people may so grant away their Authority that they cannot resume it and also that few Princes in the world hold their State by grant of the people I will never hereafter esteem a mans valour by his voice Your brave boast of all Laws Divine Humane Natural National and Positive is dissolved into smoak You busie your self as the Poets write of Morpheus in presenting shadows to men asleep But the chiefest reason you say the very ground foundation of all Soft What reason what ground if you have already made proof by all Laws Humane and Divine Natural National and Positive what better reason what surer ground will you bring Tush these interruptions The chiefest reason you say the very ground and foundation of all is that the Commonwealth is superiour to the Prince and that the Authority which the Prince hath is not absolute but by the way of mandate and commission from the Common-wealth This is that which I expected all this time you have hitherto approached by stealing steps you are now come close to the wall do but mount into credit and the fort is your own You affirmed at the first that Princs might be deposed for disability then for misgovernment now upon pleasure and at will For they who have given authority by commission do always retain more than they grant and are not excluded either from Commanding or Judging by way of prevention concurrence or evocation even in those cases which they have given in charge The reason is declared by Vlpian Because he to whom Iurisdiction is committed representeth his person who gave commission and not his own Hereupon Alexander Panormitane Innocentius and Felinus do affirm that they may cast their Commissioners out of power when they please because as Paulus saith a man can judge no longer when he forbiddeth who gave authority Further all States take denomination from that part wherein the supreme power is setled as if it be in one Prince it is called a Monarchy if in many of highest rank then it is an Aristocracy if in the people then a Democracy Whereupon it followeth if the people are superiour to the Prince if the Prince hath no power but by commission from them that then all Estates are popular for we are not so much to respect who doth execute this high Power of State as from whom immediately it is derived Hereto let us add that which you have said in another place that
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
Duty That which you report also that Thomas Becket did write unto King Henry the Second importeth nothing else but an acknowledgment of Duty Remember said he the Confession which you made I cannot omit your description of the manner of the Coronation in England First you say the King is sworn then the Archbishop declareth to the people what he hath sworn and demandeth if they be content to submit themselves unto him under those conditions whereunto they consenting he putteth on the Royal Ornaments and then addeth the words of commission Stand and hold thy place and keep thy Oath And thus you have hammered out a formal Election supposing that you draw together the pieces of falshood so close that no man can perceive the sâ—am The truth is that King Henry the Fourth being not the nearest in Bloud to the inheritance of the Crown did countenance his violence with the election of the people not at his Coronation but in a Parliament that was holden before And therefore you do impudently abuse us first in joyning them together as one Act secondly by falsifying divers points in both lastly by insinuating that the same order was observed by other Kings The points which you falsifie are these The interrogation of the Archbishop to the people the absurd straining of these words Stand hold thy place to be a Commission the alleadging also out of Stow 1. That the Archbishop did read unto the people what the King was bound unto by Oath 2. That the Earl of Northumberland did shew a Ring unto the people that they might thereby see the Band whereby the King was bound unto them 3. That the King did pray that he might observe his promise In whiâ—h composition of Conceits you shew how active you are in counterfeiting any thing that may make to your purpose perswading your self that it is no fraud unto God to deceive the World in a lye for advantage King Edward the Fourth also because his Right was litigious and another was in possession of the Crown strengthened or rather countenanced his Title with the approbation of the People But where you write that at the Coronation of King Edward the Sixth Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth the consent and acceptation of the people was demanded First we have no cause to credit any thing that you say then although it be true yet not being done in Parliament it addeth no right unto the Prince but is onely a formality a circumstance onely of Ceremony and Order Hereupon you conclude that a King hath his authority by agreement and contract between him and the people insinuating thereby that he loseth the same if he either violate or neglect his word The contrary opinion that onely succession of Bloud maketh a King and that the consent of the people is nothing necessary you affirm to be absurd base and impious an unlearned fond and wicked assertion in flattery of Princes to the manifest ruine of Commonwealths and perverting of all Law Order and Reason I did always foresee that your impostumed stomach would belch forth some loathsome matter But whosoever shall compare this confident conclusion with the proofs that you have made he will rather judge you mad than unwise This bold blast upon grounds that are both foolish and false bewrayeth rather want than weakness of wits I am ashamed I should offer any further speech in so evident a truth but since I have undertaken to combate an Heresie since the matter is of so great consequence and import I purpose once again to give you a Gorge Learn then heavy-headed Cloisterer unable to manage these mysteries of State learn of me I say for I owe this duty to all Christians the Prophets the Apostles Christ himself hath taught us to be obedient to Princes though both Tyrants and Infidels This ought to stand with us for a thousand reasons to submit our selves to such Kings as it pleaseth God to send unto us without either judging or examining their qualities Their hearts are in Gods hand they do his service sometimes in preserving sometimes in punishing us they execute his judgment both ways in the same measure which he doth prescribe If they abuse any part of their power we do not excuse we do not extenuate it we do not exempt them from their punishment let them look unto it let them assuredly expect that God will dart his vengeance against them with a most stiff and dreadful arm In the mean season we must not oppose our selves otherwise than by humble suits and prayers acknowledging that those evils are always just for us to suffer which are many times unjust for them to do If we do otherwise if we break into tumult and disorder we resemble those Giants of whom the Poets write who making offer to scale the Skies and to pull Iupiter out of his Throne were overwhelmed in a moment with the Mountains which they had heaped together Believe it Cloisterer or ask any man who is both honest and wise and he will tell you It is a Rule in Reason a Tryal in Experience an Authority confirmed by the best That Rebellion produceth more horrible effects than either the tyranny or insufficiency of any Prince An Answer to the sixth Chapter whereof the title is What is due to onely Succession by Birth and what interest or right an Heir apparent hath to the Crown before he is crowned or admitted by the Commonwealth and how justly he may be put back if he hath not the parts requisite YOu begin after your manner with a carreer against Billay but because both I have not seen what he hath written and dare not credit what you report I will not set in foot between you In breaking from this you prefer Succession of Princes before free Election as well for other respects as for the pre-eminence of Ancestry in birth which is so much priviledged in the Scripture and yet not made so inviolable you say but upon just causes it might be inverted as it appeareth by the examples of Iacob Iudah and Solomon And this liberty you hold to be the principal remedy for such inconveniencies as do ensue of the course of Succession as if the next in birth be unable or pernicious to govern in which cases if he be not capable of directions and counsels you affirm that the remedy is to remove him And so you make Succession and Election the one to be a preservative to the other supposing that the difficulties of both are taken away First if ordinarily Succession taketh place then if upon occasion we give allowance to Election For the Prerogative of Birth as also for the special choice which God hath often made of the youngest I will remit my self to that which I have written before At once in those particular actions which God hath either done or by express Oracle commanded contrary to the general Laws which he hath given us as in the Robbery of the Egyptians the extirpation of the Amalekites
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
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