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
World You close your conclusion with this conceit that the word natural Prince or natural Successor is to be understood of one who is born within the same Realm and that it is ridiculous to take it as though any Prince had natural Interest to succeed But what construction will you then make of that which Herodian delivereth in the speech of Commodus the Son of Marcus Now hath fortune given me unto you for Prince in his stead not drawn into the state such as they were who were before me nor as one that glorieth in the purchase of the Empire for I only am born unto you and brought up in the Court never swathed in private Cloaths but so soon as I was born the imperial purpure did receive me and the Sun beheld me at once both a Man and a Prince Consider these things and honor your Prince by right who is not given but born vnto you Girard goeth further in writing of Charles the Simple that he was King before he was born Say therefore again that it is ridiculous to take the word natural Prince for one that hath right of succession inherent in him by birth and I will say that this mirth will better beseem a natural indeed then any man that is wise But let us now consider the further passage of your discourse both how you are able to fortifie this foundation and what building it is able to bare TO THE SECOND CHAPTER which is intituled Of the particular Form of Monarchies and Kingdoms and the different Laws whereby they are to be obtained holden and governed in divers Countries according as each Common-wealth hath chosen and established IN this chapter you spend much speech in praising a monarchie and preferring it before the Government of manie which you do to no other end but to insinuate your self either into credit or advantage to draw it down even as Ioab presented Amasa with a kind Kiss to win thereby opportunity to stab him For in the end you fetch about that because a Prince is subject as other men not only to errours in Judgment but also to passionate affections in his will it was necessary that as the common wealth hath given that great power unto him so it should assigne him helps for managing the same And that a Prince reciveth his authority from the people you prove a little before for that Saint Peter termeth Kings Humane creatures which you interpret to be a thing created by man because by mans free choise both this form of government is erected and the same also laid upon some particular person I know not in what sort to deal with you concerning this interpretation Shall I labour to impugne it by arguments Why there is no man that wanteth not either judgment or sincerity but upon both the natural and usual sense of the words he will presently acknowledg it to be false Shall I go about either to laugh or to rail you from your errour as Cicero in the like case perswaded to do But this would be agreeable neither to the stayedness of our years nor the gravity of our professions I am now advised what to do I will appeal as Machetes did before Philip of Macedon from your self asleep to your self awake from your self distempered by affection to your self returned to sobriety of sense Do you think then in true earnest that a human creature is a thing created by man or rather that every man is a humane creature Is a brutish creature to be raken for a thing created by a beast Spiritual Angelical or any other adjunct unto creature what reference hath it to the Author of Creation And if it were so then should all creatures be called divine because they were created by God to whom only it is proper to create and in this very point Saint Paul saith that all authority is the ordinance and institution of God Neither needeth it to trouble us that Saint Peter should so generally injoine us to be obedient to all men no more than it troubled the Apostles when Christ commanded them to preach to all creatures according to which commission St. Paul did testifie that the Gospel had been preached to every creature under Heaven but St. Peter doth specifie his general speech and restrain his meaning to Kings and Governors in which sence St. Ambrose citeth this place as it followeth Be subject to your Lords whether it be to the King as to the most excellent c. This interpretation not onely not relieving you but discovering very plainly either the weakness or corruption of your judgment it resteth upon your bare word that Kings have received their first Authority from the people which although I could deny with as great both countenance and facility as you affirm yet will I further charge upon you with strength of proof Presently after the inundation of the world we find no mention of politick Government but onely of oeconomical according as men were sorted in families for so Moses hath written that of the progeny of Iapheth the Isles of the Gentiles were divided after their families The first who established Government over many families was Nimrod the Son of Cush accounted by St. Chrysostome the first King which Authority he did not obtain by favour and election of any people but by plain purchase of his power Hereupon Moses calleth him a mighty Hunter which is a form of speech among the Hebrews whereby they signifie a spoiler or oppresser And this doth also appear by the etymology of his name for Nimrod signifieth a Rebel a Transgressour and as some interpret it a terrible Lord And names were not imposed in ancient times by chance or at adventure as Plato one of Natures chief Secretaries and among the Latin Writers Aul. Gellius do affirm Many hold opinion that this Nimrod was the same whom the Grecians call Ninus which seemeth to be confirmed by that which Moses saith that he did build the City of Ninive Of this Ninus Iustine writeth that he was the first who held that which he did subdue others satisfied with Victory aspired not to bear Rule Nimrod founded the Empire of the Assyrians which continued by Succession in his posterity until it was violently drawn from Sardanapalus to the Medes From them also Cyrus by subversion of Astyages did transport it to the Persians and from them again the Grecians did wrest it by Conquest After the death of Alexander his Captains without any consent of the people made partition of the Empire among them whose successors were afterwards subdued by the Armies and Arms of Rome And this Empire being the greatest that ever the Earth did bear was in the end also violently distracted by divers several either Conquests or Revolts Leo Afer writeth that it is not a hundred years since the people of Gaoga in Africk had neither King nor Lord until one observed the greatness and Majesty
the Prince hereby affected the person is both tyed and touched in honour the authority ceaseth not if performances do fail Of this sort was that which you report of Trajan who in delivering the Sword to his Governors would say If I reign justly then use it for me if otherwise then use it against me But where you adde that these are the very same words in effect which Princes do use at their Coronations pardon me for it is fit I should be moved you will find it to be a very base lye Of this nature was that also which the same Trajan did to encourage his Subjects to do the like in taking an Oath to observe the Laws which Pliny the younger did account so strange as the like before had not been seen But afterward Theodoric did follow that fact whereupon Cassiodorus saith Ecce Trajani nostri clarum seculis reparamus exemplum jurat vobis per quem juratis We repair the famous example of Trajan he sweareth to you by whom you swear So when King Henry the Fifth was accepted for Successor to the Crown of France he made promise to maintain the Parliament in the liberties thereof And likewise divers Princes do give their faith to maintain the priviledges of the Church and not to change the Laws of the Realm which Oath is interpreted by Baldus Panormitane and Alexander to extend no further than when the Laws shall be both profitable and just because Justice and the common benefit of Subjects is the principal point both of the Oath and Duty of a Prince whereto all other clauses must be referred And now to your Examples First because in all the rank of the Hebrew Kings you cannot find either Condition or Oath not in the ancient Empires and Kingdoms of the world not usually in the flourishing time of the Roman State both under Heathen and Christian Emperours because these times are too pure for your purpose you fumble forth a dull Conjecture That forsomuch as the first Kings were elected by the People it is like that they did it upon conditions and assurances for themselves That the first Kings received not their Authority from the people I have manifested before and yet your inference hereupon is no other than if you should sue in some Court for a Legacy alleadging nothing for your intent but that it is like the Testator should leave you something in which case it is like I suppose that your Plea would be answered with a silent scorn After a few loose Speeches which no man would stoop to gather together you bring in the example of Anastasius the first Emperour of Constantinople of whom the Patriarch Euphemius required before his Coronation a Confession of the Faith in writing wherein he should promise to innovate nothing And further he promised to take away certain Oppressions and to give Offices without money Let us take things as they are and not speak upon idle imagination but agreeable to sence What either Condition or Restraint do you find in these words Condition they do not form because in case of failance they do not make the Authority void neither do they make Restraint because they contain no point whereunto the Law of God did not restrain him All this he was bound to perform without an Oath and if he were a thousand times sworn he was no more but bound to perform it even as if a Father should give his word to cloath and feed his Child or the Husband to love his Wife or any man to discharge that duty which God and Nature doth require It is true that Anastasius was both a wicked man and justly punished by God for the breach of his Faith but his Subjects did never challenge to be free therefore from their Allegiance The same Answer may be given to the Promise which Michael the first gave to Nicephorus the Patriarch That he would not violate the Ordinances of the Church nor embrue his hands with innocent bloud especially if you take the word Ordinances for matters necessary to be believed but if you take it in a larger sence then have I also declared in the beginning of this Chapter how far the Promise doth extend Your next Example is of the Empire of Almain from whence all that you object doth fall within this circle After the death of Charles the Great the Empire was held by Right of Succession until his Line was determined in Conrade the First After whose death it became Elective first in Henry Duke of Saxony then in Otho his son and afterwards in the rest from whom notwithstanding no other promise was wrested but the discharge of that duty which they were informed or rather threatned that God would severely exact at their hands But as in all Elective States it usually happeneth at every new change and choice the Emperour was deplumed of some of his Feathers until in the end he was made naked of Authority the Princes having drawn all power to themselves So by degrees the Empire was changed from a Monarchy to a pure Aristocracy the Emperour bearing the Title thereof but the Majesty and Puissance remaining in the States During which weakness of the Emperour some points were added to his Oath which seemed to derogate from the soveraignty of his estate But what is this to those Princes who have retained their dignity without any diminution either of Authority or of Honour The like may be said of Polonia which not many hundred years since was erected into a Kingdom and although the States did challenge therein a right of Election yet did it always pass according to propinquity of bloud and was esteemed a soveraign Monarchy until after the death of Casimire the Great when Lodovicus his Nephew King of Hungary rather greedy than desirous to be King also of Polonia did much abase the Majesty thereof Yet falling afterward into the Line of Iagello who married one of the daughters of Lodowiek it recovered the ancient both dignity and strength But when that Line also failed in Sigismond Augustus the last Male of that Family the States elected Henry Duke of Anjou for their King with this clause irritant That if he did violate any point of his Oath the people should owe him no Allegiance But whereas you report this as the usual Oath of the Kings of Polonia you deserve to hear the plainest term of untruth In the Kingdom of Spain you distinguish two times one before the Conquest thereof by the Moors the other after it was recovered again by the Christians I acknowledge a difference in these two times for that in the one the Right of the Kingdom was Elective in the other it hath always remained Successive insomuch as Peter Belluga a diligent Writer of the Rights of Arragon doth affirm that the people have no power in electâ—on of the King except in case the Line should fail Concerning the matter in controversie you affirm that the Kings did swear
the same points in effect which before have been mentioned This we must take upon your forfeited Faith for you alleadge no form of Oath onely you write that the fourth National Council of Toledo with all humility convenient did require that the present King and all other that should follow would be meek and moderate towards their Subjects and govern them with Justice and not give sentence in Causes capital without assistance declaring further that if any of them should exercise cruel and proud Authority that they were condemned by Christ with the sentence of Excommunication and separated to everlasting Judgment But what pang hath possessed your dreaming brains to term this by a marginal Note Conditions of reigning in Spain being no other than a reverent and grave admonition of the duty of a King with a fearful declaration of the Judgment of God against wicked Princes And that which was afterward decreed in the sixth Council of Toledo That the King should swear not to suffer any man to break the Catholick Faith because it is a principal point of his duty his Estate was not thereby made conditional The rest of this passage you fill up with froath of the antiquated Law of Don Pelayo prescribing a form of inaugurating the Kings of Spain whereof there is not one point either now in use or pertaining to the purpose So miserable is your case that you can write nothing therein but that which is either impertinent or untrue For France your first Example is taken from the Coronation of Philip the First wherein you note that King Henry his Father requested the people to swear Obedience to his son inferring thereby that a Coronation requireth a new Consent which includeth a certain Election of the Subjects But this is so light that the least breath is sufficient to disperse it Philip was crowned King during the life of his Father which action as it was not ordinary so was it of such both difficulty and weight that it could not be effected without assembly and consent of the States The Oath which he made is in this form extant in the Library of Rheimes I do promise before God and his Saints that I will conserve to every one committed unto me Canonical Priviledge and due Law and Iustice and will defend them by the help of God so much as shall lie in my power as a King by right ought to do within his Realm to every Bishop and to the Church committed to him and further to the People committed to my charge I will grant by my authority the dispensation of Laws according to right Adde to this a more ancient form of the Oath of those Kings which it seemeth you have not seen I swear in the Name of God Almighty and promise to govern well and duly the Subjects committed to my charge and to do with all my Power Iudgement Iustice and Mercy Adde also the Oath which you alleadge of Philip the Second surnamed Augustus To maintain all Canonical Priviledges Law and Iustice due to every man to the uttermost of his power to defend his Subjects as a good King is bound to do to procure that they be kept in the union of the Church to defend them from all Excess Rapine Extortion and Iniquity to take order that Iustice be kept with equity and mercy and to endeavour to expel Hereticks What doth all this rise unto but a Princely promise to discharge honourably and truly those points of duty which the Laws of God did lay upon them What other Conditions or Restraints are imposed What other Contract is hereby made Where are the Protestations which in the end of the last Chapter you promised to shew that if the Prince do fail in his Promise the Subjects are free from their Allegiance What Clause do you find sounding to that sence But you little regard any thing that you say you easily remember to forget your word Well then we must put these your vain Speeches into the reckoning of Money accounted but not received and seeing you cannot shew us that the Kings of France and of Spain are tyed to any Condition whereto the Law of God doth not bind them I will not vary from the judgment of Ordradus in affirming them to be absolute Kings I have pressed this point the rather in this place because you write that most Neighbour-Nations have taken the form of anointing and crowning their Kings from the ancient custom of France although the substance be deduced from the first Kings of the Hebrews as appeareth by the anointing of King Saul whereof David you say made great account notwithstanding that Saul had been rejected by God and that himself had lawfully born Arms against him Out Atheist you would be dawbed with Dung and have the most vile filth of your Stews cast in your face Did David bear Arms against his anointed King did he ever lift up his eye-lids against him did he ever so much as defend himself otherwise than by flight It is certain that Shemei did not half so cruelly either curse or revile this holy man who did so much both by speech and action detest this fact that he would rather have endured ten thousand deaths than to have defiled his Soul with so damnable a thought What then shall we say unto you who to set up Sedition and Tumult abuse all divine and humane Writings in whatsoever you believe will advance your purpose who spend some speech of respect unto Kings for allurement onely to draw us more deep into your deceit Shall we give any further ear to your Doctrine both blasphemous and bloudy We will hear you to the end and I deceive my self but your own tale shall in any moderate judgment condemn the authority of your opinions for ever Let us come then to your last Example which is neither the last nor the least whereat you level and that is of England which of all other Kingdoms you say hath most particularly taken this Ceremony of Sacring and Anointing from France Well let the Ceremony be taken from whence you please if the Oath be no other than you do specifie To observe peace honour and Reverence unto Almighty God to his Church and to the Ministers of the same to administer Law and Iustice equalâ—y to all to abrogate evil Laws and Customs and maintain good which was the Oath of King Richard the First the like whereto was that of King Iohn altered onely in the first branch To love and defend the Catholick Church If the Oath be no other I say I do not see what other Answer you need to expect but that it is onely a free Royal Promise to discharge that duty which God doth impose And this is plainly declared by the Speech which you alleadge of Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury to King Henry the Fourth Remember saith he the Oath which voluntarily you made Voluntarily he said and not necessarily it was voluntaly in Oath but necessary in
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
hath dependency upon the People I have sufficiently encountred before And if your Consequence were true That whosoever is Judge of a thing is Judge also without controllment of the Cause if this were as agreeable to all Laws as you seem to believe then were all Judgments arbitrary then could no Appeal be interposed for giving Sentence without just Cause then were it false which Panormitan writeth that a false Cause expressed in a Sentence maketh it void What shall I say What do you think Do you think that these fat Drops of a greasie Brain can bring the Tenure of a Crown to the Will of the People What are you who endeavour thus boldly to abuse both our Judgment and Conscience Are you Religious Are you of Civil either Nature or Education who under the name of Civilian do open the way to all manner of Deceits Perjuries Tumults and Treasons What are you For you shew your self more prophane than Infidels more barbarous than Canibals Tartarians Moors and Mammelucks who though they please themselves in nothing more than Hatred and Contempt yet do they both love and honour their Kings I see what you are the very true Follower of the Anabaptists in Germany who openly professed That they must ruinate the State of Kings And who can assure us for your corrupt Dealings make all Suspicions credible that you do not also follow them both in Desire and Hope to embrace the Monarchy of the whole World The difference between you is this They pretended Revelation for then Warrant you work by deceitful shew of Reason by falsly either alledging or wresting or corrupting both Humane and Divine Authority In what miserable condition should Princes live if their State depended upon the Pleasure of the People in whom Company taketh away Shame and every Man may lay the Fault on his Fellow How could they command Who would obey What could they safely either do or omit Who knows a People that knoweth not that sudden Opinion maketh them hope which if it be not presently answered they fall into Hate chusing and refusing erecting and overthrowing as every Wind of Passion doth puff What steddiness in their Will or Desire which having so many Circles of Imagination can never be enclosed in one Point And whereas you write That God always approveth the Will and Judgment of the People as being properly the Judge of the whole Business and that every particular Man must simply submit himself thereunto without further inquisition although at divers times they determine Contraries as they did between the Houses of Lancaster and York because we must presume they were led by different Respects You seem not obscurely to erect thereby another privileged Power upon Earth which cannot err which doth not deceive But it may be some honest-minded Man will say That howsoever you write your meaning was otherwise You write also afterward That in two Cases every Private Man is bound to resist the Judgment of the whole People to the uttermost extent of his Ability Well then let us take you for a Man whose Sayings disagree both from your Meaning and between themselves let us consider what are your two Exceptions The first is when the Matter is carried not by way of orderly Judgment but by particular Faction of Private Men who will make offer to determine the Cause without Authority of the Realm committed unto them But this Exception is so large that it devoureth the whole Rule for in Actions of this quality the Original is always by Faction the Accomplishment by Force or at least by Fear howsoever they are sometimes countenanced with Authority of the State So Sylla having brought his Legions within the Walls of Rome obtained the Law Valeria to be published whereby he was created Dictator for twenty four Years by means of which Force Cicero affirmeth that it was no Law Likewise Lawrence Medices having an Army within Florence caused or rather constrained the Citizens to elect him Duke When Henry the Fourth was chosen King he held Forty thousand Men in Arms. And this is most evident by your own Example of four contrary Acts of Parliament which at divers times were made during the Contention between the Families of Lancaster and York not upon different Reasons as with little reason you affirm but upon different Success of either Side In Matters of this moment the orderly Course of Proceeding is onely by Parliament The Parliament must be summoned by the King 's Writ and no Act thereof hath Life but by express Consent of the King If this Form had always been observed neither our Kings should have been deposed nor the next Successors excluded nor the Title of the Crown entangled to the inestimable both weakning and waste of all the Realm Your second Exception is When such a Man is preferred to the Crown by whom God is manifestly offended and the Realm prejudiced or endangered In which Case you say every Man with a free and uncontrolled Conscience may resist what he can It was even here I looked for you Your broyling Spirits do nothing else but fling Firebrands and heap on Wood to set Kingdoms in Combustion What Rebellion what Revolt hath ever been made but under some of these Pretences What Princes Actions either by malicious or ignorant Interpretation may not easily be drawn to one of these Heads You are a Nursery of War in the Commonwealth a Seminary of Schism and Division in the Church In sum All your Actions all your Thoughts are barbarous and bloody You write much of Right and Justice but you measure the Right and Justice of a Cause by the Advantage of your own Affairs You speak as having a tender sense of the Glory of God but you stretch out your Throat with high Words of Contradiction against him You make shew of Care to preserve the State but you are like the Ivy which seemeth outwardly both to embrace and adorn the Wall whereinto inwardly it doth both eat and undermine For what Means either more ready or forcible to overthrow a State than Faction and intestine Quarrels And what other Milk do you yield What are your Opinions what your Exhortations but either to set or to hold up Sedition and Bloodshed St. Paul teacheth us not to resist higher Powers although both cruel and prophane you teach us to resist them what we can The Apostle is followed of all the Ancient Fathers of the Church you are followed of those onely who follow the Anabaptists For my part I had rather err with the Apostle in this Opposition than hold Truth with you But I will speak more moderately in a Subject of such a nature I will not say then That I had rather err but That I shall less fear to err in not resisting with the Apostle than in resisting with you New Counsels are always more plausible than safe After you have plaid the Suffenus with your self in setting the Garland upon your own Head and making