of God forget to pursue revenge For albeit King Edward his Son enjoyed both a long and prosperous Reign yet his next Successor King Richard the second was in the like violent manner imprisoned deprived and put to death I will prosecute the successive revenge which hereof also ensued being a strange matter and worthy to be rung into the ears of all Ages King Henry the Fourth by whom King Richard was deposed did exercise the chiefest Acts of his Reign in executing those who conspired with him against King Richard His Son had his Vertue well seconded by Felicity during whose Reign by means of the Wars in France the humour against him was otherwise employed and spent but his next Successor King Henry the Sixth was in the very like manner deprived and together with his young Son Edward imprisoned and put to death by King Edward the Fourth This Edward died not without suspicion of poyson and after his death his two Sons were in like manner disinherited imprisoned and murthered by their cruel Unkle the Duke of Gloucester who being both a Tyrant and Usurper was justly encountred and slain by King Henry the Seventh in the field So infallible is the Law of Justice in revenging Cruelties and Wrongs not always observing the presence of times wherein they are done but often calling them into reckoning when the Offenders retain least memory of them Likewise the deposition of King Richard the Second was a tempestuous Rage neither led nor restrained by any Rules of Reason or of State not suddenly raised and at once but by very cunning and artificial degrees But examine his actions without distempred judgment and you will not condemn him to be exceeding either insufficient or evil weigh the Imputations that were objected against him and you shall find nothing either of any truth or of great moment Hollingshead writeth that he was most unthankfully used by his Subjects for although through the frailty of his youth he demeaned himself more dissolutely than was agreeable to the Royalty of his estate yet in no Kings days the Commons were in greater wealth the Nobility more honoured and the Clergy less wronged who notwithstanding in the evil-guided strength of their Will took head against him to their own headlong-destruction afterward partly during the Reign of King Henry his next Successor whose greatest Atchievements were against his own people but more especially in succeeding times when upon occasion of this disorder more English bloud was spent than was in all the forraign Wars which had been since the Conquest Three causes are commonly insinuated by you for which a King may be deposed Tyranny Insufficiency and Impiety But what Prince could hold his State what People their Quiet assured if this your Doctrine should take place How many good Princes doth Envy brand with one of these marks What action of State can be so ordered that either blind Ignorance or set Malice will not easily strain to one of these heads Every execution of Justice every demand of Tribute or Supply shall be claimed Tyranny every infortunate Event shall be exclaimed Insufficiency every kind of Religion shall by them of another Sect be proclaimed Impiety So dangerous it is to permit this high power to a heedless and headless Multitude who measure things not by Reason and Justice but either by Opinion which commonly is partial or else by Report which usually is full of uncertainties and errours the most part doing because others do all easie to become slavish to any mans ambitious attempt So dangerous it is to open our ears to every foolish Phaeton who undertaking to guide the Chariot of the Sun will soon cast the whole Earth into combustion You proceed that King Henry the Sixth was also deposed for defects in Government Let us yield a little to you that you may be deceived a little that you may be carried by your affections How can you excuse these open untruths wherein it cannot be but the Devil hath a finger You cannot be ignorant that the onely cause which drew the Family of York into Arms against King Henry was the Title which they had unto the Crown by vertue whereof it was first enacted That Rich. Duke of York should succeed King Henry after his death but for that he made unseasonable attempts he was declared by Parliament incapable of succession and afterwards slain at the Battel of Wakefield Then Edward his Son prosecuting the enterprize and having vanquished King Henry at the Battle of St. Albans obtained possession of the State caused King Henry to be deposed and himself to be proclaimed and Crowned King Afterward he was chased out of the Realm and by Act of Parliament both deprived and disabled from the Crown Lastly he returned again and deprived King Henry both from Government and from Life It is true that some defects were objected against King Henry but this was to estrange the hearts of the people from him The main cause of the War did proceed from the right of the one party and possession of the other The contrariety of the Acts of Parliament was caused by the alternative Victories of them both Your last example is of King Richard the Third of whom you write First that although he sinned in murthering his Nephews yet after their death he was lawful King Secondly that he was deposed by the Common-wealth who called out of France Henry Earl of Richmond to put him down Philosophers say that dreams do commonly arise by a reflection of the phansie upon some subject whereof we have meditated the day before It may be that your drowsie conceit was here cast into a dream of that whereon it had dozed in all this Chapter Or at the best that you are like unto those who have so often told a lie that they perswade themselves it is ture King Edward the fourth left other children besides those that were murthered the Duke of Clarence also who was elder Brother to King Richard left Issue in life all which had precedence of right before him And as for the second point tell me I pray you by what Parliament was King Richard deposed where did the States assemble when did they send for the Earl of Richmond to put him down by what Decree by what Messengers There is no answer to be made but one and that is to confess ingenuously that you say untrue and that it is your usual manner of deceiving to impute the act of a few unto all and to make every event of Arms to be a judicial proceeding of the Common-wealth For it is manifest that the Earl of Richmond had his first strength from the King of France and that after his descent into England more by half both of the Nobility and common people did stand for King Richard than stir against him You adjoyn for a special consideration that most excellent Princes succeeded these whom you affirm to be deposed I will not extenuate the excellency of any Prince but I
to the Empire of the Romans So the Tartarians commit absolute power both over their lives and their livings to every one of their Emperors and so have our People many times committed to their King the Authority of the Parliament either generally or else for some particular case For it is held as a rule that any man may relinquish the Authority which he hath to his own benefit and favor Neither is he again at pleasure to be admitted to that which once he did think â—it to renounce And as a private man may altogether abandon his free estate and subject himself to servile condition so may a multitude pass away both their Authority and their liberty by publick consent The second is by prescription and custom which is of strength in all parts of the world least matters should always float in uncertainty and controversies remain immortal And that this Authority of the People may be excluded by prescription it is evident by this one reason which may be as one in a third place of Arithmetick in standing for a hundred Every thing may be prescribed wherein prescription is not prohibited But there is no Law which prohibiteth prescription in this case and therefore it followeth that it is permitted And generally custom doth not only interpret Law but correcteth it and supplyeth where there is no Law in so much as the common Law of England as well in publick as private controversies is no other a few maxims excepted but the common custom of the Realm Baldus saith that custom doth lead succession in principalities which Martinus adviseth to â—ix in memory because of the often change of Princes and the particular custom of every Nation is at this day the most usual and assured Law between the Prince and the Peâ—ple And this do the Emperors Honor us and Arcadius in these words command punctually to be observed Mos namque retinendus est fidelissimae vetustatis the custom of faithful Antiquity must be retained Which place is to this sense ballanced by Pau. Caestrensis Franc. Aretinus and Phil. Corneus who termeth it a moral text The like whereto is found also in the Canon law and noted by the Glossographer Archidiaconus Romanus and Cepola Neither were the Fathers of the Nicene Councel of other Opinion who thus decreed Let antient customs stand in strength Whereto also agreeth that old Verse of Ennius Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque Customs and men of oldest sort The Roman State do best support Which is cited by Saint Austin and esteemed by Cicero both for brevity and truth as an Oracle To the same sense Periander of Corinth said that old Laws and new Meats were fittest for use which saying Phavorinus in Gellius did in this manner a little vary Live after the passed manner speak after the present Hereto also pertaineth that edict of the censors mentioned by Suetonâ—us and Aul. Gellius Those things which are beside the custom and fashion of our Elders are neither pleasing nor to be adjudged right Of this point I shall have occasion more particularly hereafter to write The third means whereby the People may loose their Authority is by way of conquest For howsoever Saint Augustine and after him Alciate do disallow ambition of enlarging Empire and term Wars upon this cause great Theeveries Whereupon Lucane and his Uncle Seneca called Alexander the Great a great robber of the World yet there is no doubt but the sentence of victory especially if the War was undertaken upon good cause as the Conqueror being made his own Arbitrator will hardly acknowledge the contrary is a just title of acquisition reducing the vanquished their priviledges liberties and whole Estate under the discretion of him that is victorious Caesar saith He giveth all that denieth right Which sentence is approved by Covaruvias affirming that the victor maketh all which his sword toucheth to be his own So saith Baldus that he doth his pleasure upon the vanquished and again Caesar in the speech of Ariovistus it is the Law of Arms that the victorious should command those whom they have subdued even as they please Clemens Alexandrinus saith that the goods of Enemies are taken away by right of war Isocrates hath written that the Lacedaemonians did by title of victory in this sort maintain their right We hold this Land given by the Posterity of Hercules confirmed by the Oracle of Delphos the inhabitants thereof being overcome by War Which was not much unlike that which Iephte captain of Israel expostulated with the Ammonites Are not those things thine which Chamos thy God hath possessed but whatsoever the Lord our God hath conquered pertaineth unto us Yea God doth expresly give to the People of Israel the Cities which they should subdue some into full possession others into servitude and subjection By wâ—ich title Iacob also had given to Ioseph his partâ—ge among his brethren even the Laâ—d which he had taken from the Amorites with his sword and with his bow It was usual to the Romans and as Appian saith just to retain principal or direct Dominion in all things which they brought under the sway of their sword Brissonius hath collected certain examples of the form of yielding unto the Romans whereby all prophane and sacred all human and divine matters were submitted unto them Seeing therefore that the people may so many ways loose both their power and their right in affairs of state is not your ignorance adventurous so generally to affirm that if no one form of Government be natural there is no doubt but the people have power both to alter and limit the same as they please Can no Law no custom no Conquest restrain them Your pen doth range and your judgment rage beyond all compass and course of reaâ—on You should have said that there is no doubt but if by all or any of these means the right both of succession and governmâ—â—t be setled in one family according to prâ—â—â—â—quity and priority of blood the people may neither take away nor varie the same and if they do they commit iniustice they violate the law of nations whereby they expose themselvs not only to the infamie and hate of all men but to the revenge of those who will attempt upon them For it is not only lawful but honorable for any people either to right or reveng the breach of this Law against them which contemn it as monsters against them who know it not as beasts Saint Augustine saith If a City upon earth should decree some great mischiefs to be done by the decree of mankind it is to be destroyed And as in the state of one countrey any man may accuse upon a publick crime so in the state of the world any people may prosecute a common offence for as there is a civil band among all the People of one Nation so is there a natural Knot among all men in the
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
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
every mans mouth but in advise and in action nothing less The contention is for worldly right take away that and you shall find no cause of war Now they pretend piety to every mischief the name of holy warfare most miserable is applied unto arms Hereupon such cruel calamities have ensued in most parts of Europe and especially in Germany and France with so little furtherance to that cause for whose supportance force was offered that all the chief Writers of our Age are now reduced to the former opinion affirming with Arnobius that Religion is of power sufficient for it self with Tertulian also Lactantius Cassiodorus Iosephus S. Barnard and others that it must be perswaded and not enforced They of your Society as they took their original from a Souldier so they are the only Atheologians whose heads entertain no other Object but the Tumult of Realms whose Doctrine is nothing but confusion and blood-shed whose Perswasions were never followed but they have made way for all miseries and mischiefs to range in to come forward to thrive to prevail You have always bin like a winter Sun strong enough to raise Vapours but unable to dispel them For most cowardly Companions may set up strife but it is maintained with the hazzard and ended with the ruine always of the worthiest and sometimes of all The sum is this So long as we express pure piety both in our Doctrine and in our doings all will go well but when we make a mixture of divine and humane both Wisedom and Power when we preach policy when we make a common trade of Treason when we put no difference between Conscience and Conceit we must needs overthrow either Religion or our selves Now I will answer the Reasons of your Assertion First you say That if Princes do not assist their Subjects in the honour and service of God in this life God should draw no other fruit or commodity from humane Societies then of an Assembly of brutish Creatures But this Reason is not only weak as it may appear by that which hath been said but also brutish and which is worse prophane For what fruit what commodity doth God draw from Societies of men is not his Glory perfect in it self can we add any thing to the excellency thereof hath he any need of our broken worship God is an absolute Being both comprehending and exceeding all Perfections an Infinite Being therefore his sufficiencies neither can be encreased nor depend upon any but only of himself He was from Eternity without any world and a thousand worlds more cannot at all encrease his felicity and glory he did create the world not to participate any thing thereof but to communicate from himself unto it Hereupon Iob saith What profit is it to God if thou be just What advantage is it to him if thy wayes be clean Surely we must be better enformed of the soundness of your judgment before we dare depend upon the authority of your word You put us in mind that you compared an Heir apparant to a Spouse betroathed onely and not married to the common wealth I remember it well but I did not take you for such a widower of wit that you could think it worthy to be repeated And yeâ— that which hereupon you deduce out of S. Paul maketh altogether against you S. Paul saith that if a brother hath an infidel to wife if she consent to abide with him he may not put her away and likewise if a woman hath an infidel husband but if the infidel doth depart then the Christian is free Now if you will needs make a marriage between a King and his Subjects you might hereupon conclude that if an infidel King will hold his state the people may not dispossess him And wheras you affirme That all they who differ in any point of Religion and stand wilfully in the same are Infidels the one to the other you shew both a violence and weakness of mind For obstinate Error in certain Articles of Faith and not in the whole state and substance thereof doth make an Heretick but not an Infidel And although the Canon Law doth in some case dissolve marriage between a Christian and an Infidel yet doth it not permit the like between a true Christian and an Heretick And Panormitane in his doubâ—ing manner denyeth that the Church hath power to authorise diviorce in case of herisie So that allowing your comparison for good yet in case of infidelity S. Paul in case of Heresie the Cannon Law is altogether against you You add that albeit the Religion which a man professeth be never so true yet whosoever hath a contrary perswasion thereof he shall sin damnably in the sight of God to prefer that man to a charge where he may draw others to his Opinion But I will omit this strain and yet rather as impertinent than true For there are few Nations in the world wherein the people have right to prefer any man to be King and that which you alledge out of S. Paul for your proof is very different from the case which you do form The Apostle speaketh when an action is of it self indifferent but a weak Conscience judgeth it evil being also evil by circumstance in offending others you speak where an action is good in it self but an erronious conscience judgeth it evil I allow that a good action contrary to conscience is unprofitable but that it is always a damnable sin I dare not affirm I dare not affirm that the Roman army did damnably sin in deferring the Empire to Iovinian who excusing himself as Zonaras writeth because being a Christian he could not command a Pagan army they did notwithstanding confirme him Emperour by which means they did afterward embrace the Christian faith The like doth Orosius report that Valentinian being discharged by Iulian from being Tribune because he was a Christian by consent of the Souldiers was created Augustus I rather take it to be a damnable sin which Zonaras writeth of the Bulgarians in taking arms against their King because he was converted to Christian Religion albeit they did according to their Conscience It were wasting time to dive into the depth of this question because it appertaineth to Elective States and not unto us But where you write without either authority or proof that to assist or not to resist the advancement or government of any King whom we judge faulty in Religion is a most damnable sin of what side soever the truth be you breath out most filthy and unsavory smoke you lift up your voice into high blasts of blasphemy against the most High God hath taught by the Apostle S. Paul that whosoever resist the higher Powers which at that time were Infidels receive unto themselves damnation you teach that whosoever doth not in the like case resist doth damnably offend Were not the spirit of division otherwise called the Devil seated in your soul