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
your imaginary Audience to applaud your Opinion as worshipfully wise you proceed to declare what ought chiefly to be regarded in furthering or hindering any Prince towards the Crown Three Points you say are to be required in every Prince Religion Chivalry and Justice And putting aside the two last as both handled by others and of least importance you assume onely to treat of Religion wherein either Errour or Want doth bring inestimable Damage to any State You draw a long Discourse That the highest End of every Commonwealth is the Service and Worship of God and consequently That the Care of Religion is the principal Charge which pertaineth to a King And therefore you conclude That whatsoever Prince doth not assist his Subjects to attain this End omitteth the chief part of his Charge and committeth High Treason against his Lord and is not fit to hold that Dignity though he perform the other two Parts never so well And that no Cause can so justly clear the Conscience whether of the People or of particular Men in resisting the Entrance of any Prince as if they judge him faulty in Religion This is neither nothing nor all which you say In Elective States the People ought not to admit any Man for King who is either cold or corrupt in Religion but if they have invested such a one with Sovereign Authority they have no Power at pleasure to remove him In Successive Kingdoms wherein the People have no Right of Election it is not lawful for Private Men upon this cause to offer to impeach eithâ—r the Entrance or Continuance of that King which the Laws of the State do present unto them not onely because it is forbidden of God for that is the least part of your regard but because disorderly Disturbance of a setled Form in Government traineth after it more both Impieties and Dangers than hath ever ensued the Imperfections of a King I will come more close to the Point in controversie and dispel those foggy Reasons which stand between your Eye and the Truth There are two Principal Parts of the Law of God the one Moral or Natural which containeth three Points Sobriety in our selves Justice towards others and generally also Reverence and Piety towards God The other is Supernatural which containeth the true Faith of the Mysteries of our Salvation and the special kind of Worship that God doth require The first God hath delivered by the Ministry of Nature to all Men the second he doth partly reveal and partly inspire to whom he pleases and therefore although most Nations have in some sort observed the one yet have they not onely erred but failed in the other During the time of the Law this peculiar Worship of God was appropriate onely to the People of Israel in a corner Kingdom of the World The flourishing Empires of the Assyrians Medes Persians Aegyptians Graecians Syrians and Romans either knew it not or held it in contempt The Israelitâ—s were almost always in subjection under these both Heathen and Tyrannical Governments and yet God by his Prophets enjoyned them Obedience affirming That the Hearts of Kings were in his Hands and that they were the Officers of his Justice the Executioners of his Decrees In the time of Grace the true Mysteries both of Worship and Belief were imparted also to other Nations but the ordinary Means to propagate the same was neither by Policy nor by Power When St. Peter offered provident Counsel as he thought unto Christ advising him to have care of himself and not to go to Hierusalem where the Iews sought to put him to death Christ did sharply reprove him for it When he did draw his Sword and therewith also drew Blood in defence of Christ he heard this Sentence They that take the sword shall perish with the sword Christ armed his Apostles onely with Fiery Tongues by force whereof they maintained the Field against all the Stratagems and Strength in the World And when Princes did not onely reject but Persecute their Doctrine they taught their Subjects obedience unto them they did both encounter and overcome them not by resisting but by persisting and enduring This course seemeth strange to the discourse of Reason to plant Religion under the Obedience of Kings not only careless thereof but cruel against it but when we consider that the Jews did commonly forsake God in prosperity and seek him in distress that the Church of Christ was more pure more zealous more entire I might also say more populous when she travelled with the Storme in her Face then when the wind was either prosperous or calme that as S. Agustine saithâ—s Want or weakness of faith is usually Chastised with the Scourges of tribulations We may learn thereby no further to examin but to admire and embrace the unsearchable wisdom and will of God Seeing therefore that this is appointed the odinary means both to establish and encrease Religion may we adventure to exchange it with humane devices Is it the Servants duty either to contradict or dispute the Masters commandement is there any more ready way to prove an Heretick then in being a curious questionist with God is he bound to yield to any man a reason of his will It is more then presumption it is plain Rebellion to oppose our reason against his order against his decree It standeth also upon common Rules That which is contrary to the nature of a thing doth not help to strengthen but destroy it It is foolish to add external stay to that which is sufficient to support it self It is senceless to attempt that by force which no force is able to effect That which hath a proper Rule must not be directed by any other And this was both the Profession and practice of the antient Fathers of the Church as I have declared before whereto I will here add that which S. Ambrose saith Let every man bear it patiently if it be not extorted from the Emperor which he would be loath the Emperor should extort from him And lest they might be interpreted not to mean obedience as well to succession as to present Power they alledge that which the Captive Jews of Babylon did write to the tributary Jews which were at Ierusalem to pray for the life not only of Nebuchodonosor the King of Babylon but also of Baltasar his Son the next Successor to his Estate But in latter times Innocentius hath taught and is also seconded by Castrensis that love is a just cause to move armes for matters of Religion Under which pretence divers men have pursued their own private purposes and ends Guicciardine writeth that Firdinand who was called the catholick did cover all his covetous and ambitious desires with the honest and holy vail of religion the like doth Iovius report of Charles V. Emperour Paulus Emilius writeth thus of all every man professeth his war to be holy every man termeth his enemies impious sanctity and piety is
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
of God forget to pursue revenge For albeit King Edward his Son enjoyed both a long and prosperous Reign yet his next Successor King Richard the second was in the like violent manner imprisoned deprived and put to death I will prosecute the successive revenge which hereof also ensued being a strange matter and worthy to be rung into the ears of all Ages King Henry the Fourth by whom King Richard was deposed did exercise the chiefest Acts of his Reign in executing those who conspired with him against King Richard His Son had his Vertue well seconded by Felicity during whose Reign by means of the Wars in France the humour against him was otherwise employed and spent but his next Successor King Henry the Sixth was in the very like manner deprived and together with his young Son Edward imprisoned and put to death by King Edward the Fourth This Edward died not without suspicion of poyson and after his death his two Sons were in like manner disinherited imprisoned and murthered by their cruel Unkle the Duke of Gloucester who being both a Tyrant and Usurper was justly encountred and slain by King Henry the Seventh in the field So infallible is the Law of Justice in revenging Cruelties and Wrongs not always observing the presence of times wherein they are done but often calling them into reckoning when the Offenders retain least memory of them Likewise the deposition of King Richard the Second was a tempestuous Rage neither led nor restrained by any Rules of Reason or of State not suddenly raised and at once but by very cunning and artificial degrees But examine his actions without distempred judgment and you will not condemn him to be exceeding either insufficient or evil weigh the Imputations that were objected against him and you shall find nothing either of any truth or of great moment Hollingshead writeth that he was most unthankfully used by his Subjects for although through the frailty of his youth he demeaned himself more dissolutely than was agreeable to the Royalty of his estate yet in no Kings days the Commons were in greater wealth the Nobility more honoured and the Clergy less wronged who notwithstanding in the evil-guided strength of their Will took head against him to their own headlong-destruction afterward partly during the Reign of King Henry his next Successor whose greatest Atchievements were against his own people but more especially in succeeding times when upon occasion of this disorder more English bloud was spent than was in all the forraign Wars which had been since the Conquest Three causes are commonly insinuated by you for which a King may be deposed Tyranny Insufficiency and Impiety But what Prince could hold his State what People their Quiet assured if this your Doctrine should take place How many good Princes doth Envy brand with one of these marks What action of State can be so ordered that either blind Ignorance or set Malice will not easily strain to one of these heads Every execution of Justice every demand of Tribute or Supply shall be claimed Tyranny every infortunate Event shall be exclaimed Insufficiency every kind of Religion shall by them of another Sect be proclaimed Impiety So dangerous it is to permit this high power to a heedless and headless Multitude who measure things not by Reason and Justice but either by Opinion which commonly is partial or else by Report which usually is full of uncertainties and errours the most part doing because others do all easie to become slavish to any mans ambitious attempt So dangerous it is to open our ears to every foolish Phaeton who undertaking to guide the Chariot of the Sun will soon cast the whole Earth into combustion You proceed that King Henry the Sixth was also deposed for defects in Government Let us yield a little to you that you may be deceived a little that you may be carried by your affections How can you excuse these open untruths wherein it cannot be but the Devil hath a finger You cannot be ignorant that the onely cause which drew the Family of York into Arms against King Henry was the Title which they had unto the Crown by vertue whereof it was first enacted That Rich. Duke of York should succeed King Henry after his death but for that he made unseasonable attempts he was declared by Parliament incapable of succession and afterwards slain at the Battel of Wakefield Then Edward his Son prosecuting the enterprize and having vanquished King Henry at the Battle of St. Albans obtained possession of the State caused King Henry to be deposed and himself to be proclaimed and Crowned King Afterward he was chased out of the Realm and by Act of Parliament both deprived and disabled from the Crown Lastly he returned again and deprived King Henry both from Government and from Life It is true that some defects were objected against King Henry but this was to estrange the hearts of the people from him The main cause of the War did proceed from the right of the one party and possession of the other The contrariety of the Acts of Parliament was caused by the alternative Victories of them both Your last example is of King Richard the Third of whom you write First that although he sinned in murthering his Nephews yet after their death he was lawful King Secondly that he was deposed by the Common-wealth who called out of France Henry Earl of Richmond to put him down Philosophers say that dreams do commonly arise by a reflection of the phansie upon some subject whereof we have meditated the day before It may be that your drowsie conceit was here cast into a dream of that whereon it had dozed in all this Chapter Or at the best that you are like unto those who have so often told a lie that they perswade themselves it is ture King Edward the fourth left other children besides those that were murthered the Duke of Clarence also who was elder Brother to King Richard left Issue in life all which had precedence of right before him And as for the second point tell me I pray you by what Parliament was King Richard deposed where did the States assemble when did they send for the Earl of Richmond to put him down by what Decree by what Messengers There is no answer to be made but one and that is to confess ingenuously that you say untrue and that it is your usual manner of deceiving to impute the act of a few unto all and to make every event of Arms to be a judicial proceeding of the Common-wealth For it is manifest that the Earl of Richmond had his first strength from the King of France and that after his descent into England more by half both of the Nobility and common people did stand for King Richard than stir against him You adjoyn for a special consideration that most excellent Princes succeeded these whom you affirm to be deposed I will not extenuate the excellency of any Prince but I
Duty That which you report also that Thomas Becket did write unto King Henry the Second importeth nothing else but an acknowledgment of Duty Remember said he the Confession which you made I cannot omit your description of the manner of the Coronation in England First you say the King is sworn then the Archbishop declareth to the people what he hath sworn and demandeth if they be content to submit themselves unto him under those conditions whereunto they consenting he putteth on the Royal Ornaments and then addeth the words of commission Stand and hold thy place and keep thy Oath And thus you have hammered out a formal Election supposing that you draw together the pieces of falshood so close that no man can perceive the sâ—am The truth is that King Henry the Fourth being not the nearest in Bloud to the inheritance of the Crown did countenance his violence with the election of the people not at his Coronation but in a Parliament that was holden before And therefore you do impudently abuse us first in joyning them together as one Act secondly by falsifying divers points in both lastly by insinuating that the same order was observed by other Kings The points which you falsifie are these The interrogation of the Archbishop to the people the absurd straining of these words Stand hold thy place to be a Commission the alleadging also out of Stow 1. That the Archbishop did read unto the people what the King was bound unto by Oath 2. That the Earl of Northumberland did shew a Ring unto the people that they might thereby see the Band whereby the King was bound unto them 3. That the King did pray that he might observe his promise In whiâ—h composition of Conceits you shew how active you are in counterfeiting any thing that may make to your purpose perswading your self that it is no fraud unto God to deceive the World in a lye for advantage King Edward the Fourth also because his Right was litigious and another was in possession of the Crown strengthened or rather countenanced his Title with the approbation of the People But where you write that at the Coronation of King Edward the Sixth Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth the consent and acceptation of the people was demanded First we have no cause to credit any thing that you say then although it be true yet not being done in Parliament it addeth no right unto the Prince but is onely a formality a circumstance onely of Ceremony and Order Hereupon you conclude that a King hath his authority by agreement and contract between him and the people insinuating thereby that he loseth the same if he either violate or neglect his word The contrary opinion that onely succession of Bloud maketh a King and that the consent of the people is nothing necessary you affirm to be absurd base and impious an unlearned fond and wicked assertion in flattery of Princes to the manifest ruine of Commonwealths and perverting of all Law Order and Reason I did always foresee that your impostumed stomach would belch forth some loathsome matter But whosoever shall compare this confident conclusion with the proofs that you have made he will rather judge you mad than unwise This bold blast upon grounds that are both foolish and false bewrayeth rather want than weakness of wits I am ashamed I should offer any further speech in so evident a truth but since I have undertaken to combate an Heresie since the matter is of so great consequence and import I purpose once again to give you a Gorge Learn then heavy-headed Cloisterer unable to manage these mysteries of State learn of me I say for I owe this duty to all Christians the Prophets the Apostles Christ himself hath taught us to be obedient to Princes though both Tyrants and Infidels This ought to stand with us for a thousand reasons to submit our selves to such Kings as it pleaseth God to send unto us without either judging or examining their qualities Their hearts are in Gods hand they do his service sometimes in preserving sometimes in punishing us they execute his judgment both ways in the same measure which he doth prescribe If they abuse any part of their power we do not excuse we do not extenuate it we do not exempt them from their punishment let them look unto it let them assuredly expect that God will dart his vengeance against them with a most stiff and dreadful arm In the mean season we must not oppose our selves otherwise than by humble suits and prayers acknowledging that those evils are always just for us to suffer which are many times unjust for them to do If we do otherwise if we break into tumult and disorder we resemble those Giants of whom the Poets write who making offer to scale the Skies and to pull Iupiter out of his Throne were overwhelmed in a moment with the Mountains which they had heaped together Believe it Cloisterer or ask any man who is both honest and wise and he will tell you It is a Rule in Reason a Tryal in Experience an Authority confirmed by the best That Rebellion produceth more horrible effects than either the tyranny or insufficiency of any Prince An Answer to the sixth Chapter whereof the title is What is due to onely Succession by Birth and what interest or right an Heir apparent hath to the Crown before he is crowned or admitted by the Commonwealth and how justly he may be put back if he hath not the parts requisite YOu begin after your manner with a carreer against Billay but because both I have not seen what he hath written and dare not credit what you report I will not set in foot between you In breaking from this you prefer Succession of Princes before free Election as well for other respects as for the pre-eminence of Ancestry in birth which is so much priviledged in the Scripture and yet not made so inviolable you say but upon just causes it might be inverted as it appeareth by the examples of Iacob Iudah and Solomon And this liberty you hold to be the principal remedy for such inconveniencies as do ensue of the course of Succession as if the next in birth be unable or pernicious to govern in which cases if he be not capable of directions and counsels you affirm that the remedy is to remove him And so you make Succession and Election the one to be a preservative to the other supposing that the difficulties of both are taken away First if ordinarily Succession taketh place then if upon occasion we give allowance to Election For the Prerogative of Birth as also for the special choice which God hath often made of the youngest I will remit my self to that which I have written before At once in those particular actions which God hath either done or by express Oracle commanded contrary to the general Laws which he hath given us as in the Robbery of the Egyptians the extirpation of the Amalekites
the occasion of all those Mischiefs Polydore saith That he was both grieved and ashamed at nothing more Rog. Wenden affirmeth That he excused himselfe that he did it upon Oracles and by the gift of Prophesie King Iohn having locked himself into the Saddle of state made one wrong which he had done to be the cause of a greater wrong by murthering his Nephew Arthur Duke of Britan whose inheritance he did unjustly usurp For this fact the French King deprived him of all the Lands which he held in Fee of the Crown of France and prosecuted the Sentence to effect After this as men are easily imboldened against an Usurper when once he declineth either in Reputation or in State divers of the Nobility especially they of the North confederated against him but being neither able to endure his war nor willing to repose trust in his peace they contracted with Lewes the French Kings son to take upon him to be their King And so it often happeneth in civil contentions that they who are weakest do run with a naturall rashnesse to call in a third Lewes being arrived upon the coast of Kent the Nobilitie of that faction came and sware allegiance unto him The Londoners also many upon an ordinary desire to have new Kings others for fear and some for company joyned to the revolt Hereof a lamentable presence of all miseries did arise whereby as well the Liberty as the Dignity of the Realm were brought to a near and narrow jump The poor people naked both of help and hope stood at the curtesie and pleasure of the men of arms the liberty of war making all things lawfull to the fury of the strongest The Nobility feeling much and fearing more the insolency of the French Nation who as Vicount Melin a Nobleman of France confessed at his death had sworn the extirpation of all the Noble Bloud in the Realm began to devise how they might returne into the allegiance of King Iohn in so much as a little before his death Letters were brought unto him from certain of his Barons to the number of forty who desire to be received again into his peace But after his death which happily did happen within five moneths after the arrivall of the French both their hatred and their feare being at an end they were all as ready to cast out Lewes as they had been rash to call him in This History you corrupt with verie many odious untruths which are more harsh to a well-tuned ear then the crashing of teeth or the grating of copper As namely in affirming that Arthur was excluded and Iohn crowned King by the States of the Realm that God did more defend this act of the Common-wealth then the just Title of Arthur that by the same States King Iohn was rejected Prince Henry his son deprived and Lewes of France chosen to be King that the same States recalled their sentence against Prince Henry disannulling their Oath and Allegiance made unto Lewes A shameless tongue governed by a deceitful mind can easily call Faction the Common-wealth Rebellion a just and judicial Proceeding open and often Perjury an orderly revoking of a Sentence Gods secret Judgment in permitting Injustice to prevail a plain defence and allowance thereof Of the division of the Houses of Lancaster and York it is but little that you write whereto I have fully answered before you do wisely to give a light touch to this Example it is so hot that it will scald your throat King Henry the fourth more carried by cursed ambition then either by necessity or right laid an unjust gripe upon the Realm which afterward he did beautifie with the counterfeit Titles of Conquest and Election So violent are the desires of Princes to imbrace streined Titles by which they may disturb the States of other not remembring that Right may be trodden down but not trodden out having her secret both means to support and seasons to revive her For although the lawful Successor did warily strike sail to the Tempest because neither the time running nor the Opportunity present which are the Guiders of Actions did consent as then to enter into enterprise yet so soon as one hair of occasion was offered his progeny did set up a most doubtful war wherein thirteen Battels were executed by English-men only and above fourescore Princes of the Royal Blood slain Lo now the smiling success of these usurpations lo what a dear purchase of repentance they did cause Were it not that passion doth blind men not only in desire but in hope they might suffice to make us advised to keep rather the known and beaten way with safety then upon every giddy and brainless warrant to engulph our selves in those Passages wherein so many have peristed before us It belongeth to wise men to avoid mischiefs and it is the reward of fools to lament them Go too then conclude if you please that the people are not bound to admit him to the Crown who is the next Successor by propinquity of blood but rather to weigh whether it is like that he will perform his charge or no. Conclude this I say to be your Opinion and that it seemeth to you to be conform to all Reason Law Religion Piety Wisdom and Policy and to the Custom of all Common-wealths in the World and I will assuredly conclude against you that you prate without either warrant or weight An Answer to the Ninth Chapter which beareth this Title What are the Principal Points which a Commonwealth ought to respect in Admitting or Excluding any Prince wherein is handled largely also of the Diversity of Religions and other such Causes IN this Passage you handle what Cause is sufficient either to keep in or to cast out of State the next in Blood In which Question you determine That God doth allow for a just and sufficient Cause the Will and Judgment of the People Your Reason is For that they are Judge of the Thing it self and therefore they are the Judge also of the Cause Your Antecedent you prove first For that it is in their own Affair secondly For that it is in a Matter that hath its whole Beginning Continuance and Substance from them alone Your Consequence you prove by a whole lump of Law in alledging the entire Body of the Civil and Canon Law assisted also with great Reason Diogenes said of a certain Tumbler That he never saw Man take more pains to break his Neck In like sort we may say of you It is hard to find a Man that hath more busied his Wits to overthrow the Opinion of his Wisdom For the first Proof of your Antecedent is not onely of no force for you but strong against you because no Man is a competent Judge in his own Cause no Man can be both Party and Judge Whereto I will add That no Inferiour hath Jurisdiction over the Superiour much less the Subject against the Sovereign Your second Proof That all the Power of a King
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
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
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
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
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
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