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
ensign of the never-dying Majesty of the Crown In regard of this certain and incontinent succession the Glossographer upon the Decrees noteth That the Son of a King may be called King during the life of his Father as wanting nothing but administration wherein he is followed with great applause by Baldus Paenormitane Iason Carol. Ruinus Andreas Iserna Martinus Card. Alexander Albericus Fed. Barbatius Philip Decius and Ant. Corsetta Fra. Luca Matthe Afflict And the same also doth Servius note out of Virgil where he saith of Ascanius Regemque requirunt his Father Aeneas being yet alive But so soon as the King departeth out of life the Royalty is presently transferred to the next Successour according to the Laws and Customs of our Realm All Writs go forth in his Name all course of Justice is exercised all Offices are held by his Authority all States all Persons are bound to bear to him Allegeance not under supposal of approbation when he shall be Crowned according to your dull and drousie conjecture but as being the true Soveraign King of the Realm He that knoweth not this may in regard of the affairs of our State joyn himself to St. Anthony in glorying in his ignorance and professing that he knoweth nothing Queen Mary Reigned three months before she was Crowned in which space the Duke of Northumberland and others were condemned and executed for Treason for Treason I say which they had committed before she was proclaimed Queen King Edward the first was in Palestina when his Father died in which his absence the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm assembled at London and did acknowledge him for their King In his return homeward he did homage to the French King for the lands which he held of him in France He also repressed certain Rebels of Gascoine amongst whom Gasco of Bierne appealed to the Court of the King of France where King Edward had Judgment that Gasco had committed Treason and thereupon he was delivered to the pleasure of King Edward And this hapned before his Coronation which was a year and nine months after he began to reign King Henry the sixth was crowned in the eighth year of his Reign and in the mean space not only his Subjects did both profess and bear Allegeance but the King of Scots also did swear Homage unto him What need I give any more either instance or argument in that which is the clear Law the uncontrouled custom of the Realm Against which notwithstanding your weather-beaten forehead doth not blush to oppose a blind Opinion that Heirs apparent are not true Kings although their Titles be just and their predecessors dead This you labour to prove by a few dry conjectures but especially and above all others you say because the Realm is asked three times at every Coronation whether they will have such a man to be their King or no. First we have good reason to require better proof of this question than your bare word Secondly although we admit it to be true yet seeing the answer is not made by the Estates of the Realm assembled in Parliament but by a confused concourse necessary Officers excepted of all sorts both of Age and Sex it is for Ceremony only and not of force either to give or to increase any right Another of your Arguments is for that the Prince doth first swear to Govern well and justly before the Subjects take their Oath of Allegeance which argueth that before they were not bound And further you affirm that it hapned onely to King Henry the fifth among his predecessors to have fealty done unto him before he was crowned and had taken his Oath I confess indeed that Polydore and Stow have written so but you might easily have found that they write not true the one of them being a meer stranger in our State the other a man more to be commended for endeavour than for art King Iohn being in Normandy when his Brother died sent into England Hubert Arch-bishop of Canterbury William Marshal Earl of Strigvile and Geoffry Fitzpeter Lord Chief Justice who assembled the States of the Realm at Northampton and took of them an Oath of obedience to the new King Also King Henry the Third caused the Citizens of London the Guardians of the Cinque-ports and divers others to swear fealty to Prince Edward his son who being in Palestina when his Father died the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm assembled in the new Temple at London and did acknowledge him for their King And in like manner King Edward the Third took an Oath of all the Nobility of the Realm of faith after his death to Richard Prince of Wales and so did King Henry the first for his Daughter Mawde and her young son Henry After the death of King Henry the Fifth that Subjects did often swear allegeance before the Coronation and Oath of the King you had neither Countenance nor Conscience to deny but it was neither of these two which did restrain you it proceeded onely from the force of truth which will manifest it self whatsoever art we use to disguise it For otherwise what Countenance what Conscience had you to affirm that it is expresly noted by our English Historiographers That no Allegeance is due unto Kings before they be crowned Who are these Historiographers Where do they so write You that search every dusty corner of your Brains for a few ragged reasons to uphold your Heresie should not either have mentioned or omitted such pregnant proofs For in that you affirm and do not express them you condemn your self by your own silence If you mean that which you alleadge out of Polydore and Stowe That an Oath of fealty was never made before Coronation until the time of King Henry the Fifth it is neither true nor to any such sence If you mean that of Polydore in terming Henry the Fifth Prince and not King before he was crowned in writing also that the States did consult in Parliament Of creating a new King after the custom of their Ancestors It is a sleepie jeast to strain every word in such an Author to propriety of speech You might better have cited what certain Cities in France not long since alleadged for themselves That because they had not reputed Henry the Fourth for their King because they had not professed Alleageance unto him they were not to be adjudged Rebels Whereupon notwithstanding the chiefest Lawyers of our age did resolve that forasmuch as they were original Subjects even Subjects by birth they were Rebels in bearing Arms against their King although they had never professed alleageance And this is so evidently the Law of the Realm that it is presumption in us both in you to assay by your shallow Sophistry to obscure or impugn in me to endeavour by authorities and arguments to manifest or defend the same But the admission of the people you say hath often prevailed against
Enterprise At the last when lamentable Experience had made that known unto them which they had no Capacity by reason to foresee they expelled as well your Company as Counsel out of the Realm and so the Firebrands which you had kindled were broken upon your own Heads having opportunity by your just banishment to take into Consideration both the Weakness and Wrong of your Advice The partition of the Realm of France betwen Charles the Great and Charloman his younger Brother and also the uniting thereof again in Charles after the death of Charloman depended upon the disposition of Pepin their Father and not upon the Election of the People Girard saith that Pepin having disposed all things in his new Realm which he thought necessary for the surety thereof he disposed his Estate leaving the Realm of Noion to his Son Charles and to Charloman his other Son that of Soisons that by the death of Carloman both his Place and his Power did accrue unto Charles In this manner the first of a family who hath attained a Kingdom hath ordinarily directed the Succession thereof The Contention between Lewis le Debonaire and his sonnes according to your own Author Girard proceeded and succeeded after this manner Certain Lords of France taking discontentment at the immoderate favours which the king shewed toward Berard his great Chamberlain conspired against him and for their greater both countenance and strength drew his owne sonnes to be of their faction But Lewis brake this broile more by foresight than by force and doing execution upon the principal offenders pardoned his Sons Yet they interpreting this lenity to slackness of courage rebelled again gathered a greater strength drew Pope Gregory the fourth to be accomplice of their unnatural impietie whereby it appeareth saith Girard that they are either foolish or mischievous who will affirm that every thing is good which the Popes have done Afterward they took their Father under colour of good faith and sent him prisoner to Tortone and then at Compeigne assembled a Parliament composed of their own confederates wherein they made him a Monk and brought his estate into division and share It is easie to conjecture saith the same Girard what miserable conditions the Realm then endured all Laws were subverted all things exposed to the rage of the Sword the whole Realm in combustion and the people extreamely discontented at this barbarous impiety In the end Lewes by the aid of his faithful servants was taken out of prison and restored to his Kingdom and his Sons acknowledging their fault were received by him both to pardon and favour His son Pepin being dead he divided his Realm among his other three Sons Charles Lewes and Lothaire but Lewes rebelled again and was again received to mercie lastly he stirred a great part of Germanie to revolt with grief whereof the good old man his Father died After his death Lewes and Lothaire upon disdain at the great portion which their Father had assigned to their brother Charles raised war against him The Battel was given wherein Charles ramained victorious reducing them both under such conditions as he thought convenient to impose Lo◠here one of your plain and evident examples which is so free from all exception But mindes corruptly inclined hold nothing unlawful nothing unreasonable which agreeth with their passion Loys le Begue succeded after Charles not as you affirm by authoritie of the states but as in France at that time it was not unusuall by appointment of his Father And wheras you write that Loys at his first entrance had like to have bin deprived by the states but that calling a Parlament he made them many fair promises to have their good will it is a very idle untruth as appeareth by the Author whom you avouch At his death he left his wife great with child who afterward was called Charles the simple But before he had accomplished the age of 12 years there stept up in his place first Loys and Carloman his bastard brothers then Charles surnamed le Gros and after him Odo Earle of Paris Then Charles the right heir attained the Crown and then again were raised against him first Robert Earle of Angiers and afterward Ralph king of Burgundie But where you attribute these mutations to the authoritie of the states Girard saith that they where by faction and usurpation of such who from the weakness of their Prince did make advantage to their own ambition affirming plainly that between the death of Loys le Begue and Charles the simple not one of them who held the crown of the Realm was lawfull king noting further that the first two races of Kings were full of cruel parricides murthers and that in those times the Realm was often travelled with tempests of sedition Of the usurpation of Hugh Capet I have spoken before Girard writeth that although he sought many shadows of right yet his best title was by force which is the common right of first usurpers And whereas you write that Henry the first was preferred to the crown of France before Robert his helder brother First it was not by appointment of the states but of their father Secondly Girard maketh the matter doubtfull affirming that some said he was the younger brother Lastly it set up a dangerous and doubtfull war between them Further where you write that William being a bastard succeded Robert his Father in the Duchie of Normandie notwithstanding the said Robert left two brothers in life it was at that time a custom in France that bastards did succeed even as lawfull children Thierry bastard of Clovis had for his partage the kingdome of Austrasie now called Lorraine Sigisbert bastard of King Dagobert the first parted with Clovis the twelfth his lawfull brother Loys and Carloman bastards of King Loys le Begue reigned after their Father But in the third race of the kings of France a law was made that bastards should not succed in the Crown and yet other bastards of great houses were still advowed the French being then of the same opinion with Peleus in Euripides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oftentimes many Bastards excell those that are lawfully Born which is verified by Hercules Alexander the Great Romulus Timotheus Themistocles Homer Demosthenes Brutus Bion Bartolus Gratian Peter Lombard Peter Comestor Io. Andreas and divers other of most Flourishing name Your examples of Lewes the 6. and Lewes the 11. are not worth a word in answer In the beginning of their reign you affirm that they had like to have been dis-inherited by the State for the offences of their Father You bear a minde charged with thoughts Vain Busie and Bold without any restraint either of Honesty or of Discretion For how else could you here also affirm that King Henry the third of England was condemned by his Barons to be disinherited for the fault of his Father It is usual with you in all your reports either
plainly to break beyond the bounds of all truth or grossely for I cannot now say artificially to disguise it with many false and deceiveable terms But to conclude for the state of France which is also to exclude whatsoever you have said under the Reign of Charles the fift for the better establishment of this right and for cutting off those calamities which accompany usurpation there was a Law made that after the death of any King the eldest Son should incontinently succeed We are now come to our English examples of which you might have omitted those of the Saxon Kings as well for that there could be no setled form of Government in those Tumultuous times as also for that our Histories of that Age are very imperfect not leading us in the Circumstances either of the manner or occasion of particular actions they declare in Gross what things were done without further opening either how or wherefore But both these do make for your advantage for who seeth not that your examples are chiefly bred in Tempestuous times and the obscuritie of Histories will serve for a shadow to darken your deceit Well let us take both the Times and Histories as they are How will you maintain that Egbert was not next Successor to Briticus by propinquitie of Blood Briticus left no Children and Egbert was descended of the Blood Royal as Polydore affirmeth William Malmesbury saith that he was â—he only Man alive of the Royal Blood beâ—ng descended of Inegild the Brother of King Ina. How then is it true which you say that Briticus was the last of the royal Descent and if it had been so indeed the right of Election should then have been in the State And thus you Stumble at every step you entangle your self without Truth or End You snatch at the words of Polydore where he saith He is created King by consent of all which do imply no other sense but that which a little after he saith That he was saluted King by all So we finde also that the like Improper speech was used at the Coronation of Philip the Second King of France whereby the Archbishop of Reimes did Challenge power in the right of his See to make Election of the King That Adelstane was illegitimate you follow Polydore a Man of no great either Industry or Judgement William Malmesbury accounted Egwina the Mother of Adelstane to be the first Wife of King Edward his Father he termeth her also a noble Woman contrary to that which Polydore fableth Henry Huntington Roger Hoveden and others write no otherwise of him but as of one that was lawfully Born And in that you english these words of Polydore Rex dicitur Rex a populo salutatur He was made King by the People In that you affirm also that for the opinion of his valour he was preferred before his Brethren which were lawfully born whom you acknowledge to be Men of most Excellent both Expectation and proof you do plainly shew that use hath made you too open in straining of truth Eldred did first take upon him but as Protector because of the minoritie of the sonnes of Edmund his elder brother and afterward entred into full possession of the Crown But that his Nephewes were put back by the Realm it is your own idle invention it was no more the act of the realme than was the usurpation of King Richard the third That Edwin was deposed from his estate it is inexcusably untrue Polydore writeth that the Northumbrians and Mercians not fully setled in subjection made a revolt Malmesburie saith that he was maimed of a great part of his kingdome by the stroke of which injurie he ended his life And whereas you write in commendation of Kind Edgar his next successor that he kept a Navie of 6600 shippes for defence of the Realme you discover your defective judgement in embracing such reports for true In that you say that many good men of the Realm were of opinion not to admit the succession of Etheldred after the death of his brother I dare confidently affirm that you do not only tell but make an untruth having no author either to excuse or countenance the same In that you write also that between the death of Edmund Ironside and the reigne of William Conquerour it did plainly appear what interest the Common-wealth hath to alter titles of succession it doth plainly appear that both you reason and your conscience is become slavish to your violent desire For what either libertie or power had the Common-wealth under the barbarous rage and oppression of the Danes when Canutus had spread the wings of his fortune over the whole Realm none having either heart or power to oppose against him what choice was then left unto the people what room for right what man not banished from sobrietie of sense would ever have said that he was admitted king by the whole Parliament and consent of the Realme It is true that after he had both violently and unjustly obtained full possession of the Realme slain the brother of Edmund Ironside and conveyed his Children into Sueden he assembled the Nobilitie and caused himself to be crowned king but neither the form nor name of a Parliament was then known in England and if coronation were sufficient to make a title no king should be accounted to usurp Of Harold the first the natural Son of Canutus our Histories doe verie differently reporâ— Saxo Grammaticus writeth that he was never king but that he died before his Father Henry of Huntington reporteth that he was appointed but as Regent for his brother Hardicanutus Others write that apprehending the opportunitie of his Brothers absence he invaded Northumberland and Mercia by force of the Danes who were in England whereupon the Realm was divided one partholding for Harold and another for Hardicanutus who was in Denmark But because he delayed to come into England they all fell rather not to deny then to acknowledge Harold for their king Take now which of these reports you please for all do serve to your purpose alike Hardicanutus after the death of Harold came out of Denmark into England and the people having their courages broken with bondage were easie to entertain the strongest pretender But after his death divers of the Nobility especially Godwin Earl of Kent rising into hope to shake off their shoulders the importable yoke of the Danes advanced Edward the Son of Etheldred to the Crown as being the next of the Race of the Saxon Kings though not in blood yet at hand for Edward the Outlaw his elder Brother was then in Hungary and fear being the only knot that had fastened the people to the Danish Kings that once united they all scattered from them like so many birds whose Cage had been broken Edward being dead Harold the Son of Godwine usurped the Kingdom for as Malmesbury saith By extorted faith from the nobility he fastned upon the Crown a forceable gripe
attempts So dangerous it is upon any pretence to put by the next in Succession to the Crown This Henry the first left but one Daughter and by her a young Son named Henry to whom he appointed the Succession of the Realm and took an Oath of all the Bishops and likewise of the Nobility to remain faithful unto them after his decease Yet you write that because Stephen Son of Adela Sister to King Henry was thought by the States more fit to govern he was by them admitted to the Crown In which assertion you cannot be deceived you do not err but your passion doth pull you from your own Knowledge and Judgement Polydore writeth that he possessed the Kingdom contrary to his Oath for which cause the minds of all men were exceedingly moved some did abhor and detest the impiety others and those very few unmindfull of Perjury did more boldly then honestly allow it and followed his part Further he saith that he was crowned at Westminster in an assembly of those Noble Men who were his Friends Nubrigensis affirmeth that violating his Oath he invaded the Kingdom William Malmesbury who lived in King Stephen's time saith that he was the first of all Lay-men next the King of Scots who had made Oath to the Empresse Maud and that he was Crowned three Bishops being present of whom one was his Brother no Abbot and a very few of the Nobility Henry Huntington who lived also in the same time saith that by force and impudence tempting God he invaded the Crown Afterward he reporteth that being desirous to have his Son Eustace Crowned King with him the Bishops withstood it upon Commandement from the Pope because he took upon him the Kingdom against his Oath Roger Hoveden writeth that he invaded the Crown in manner of a tempest This is the report of those Writers who came nearest both to the time and truth of this action whom other Authors do likewise follow Polydore and after him Hollingshead do write that he took upon him the Crown partly upon confidence in the power of Theobald his Brother Earl of Blois and partly by the aid of Henry his other Brother Bishop of Winchester Walsingham adaddeth that Hugh Bigot who had been King Henries Steward took an Oath before the Archbishop of Canterbury that King Henry at his death appointed Stephen to be his Successour Whereupon the Archbishop and a few others were over-lightly led like men blinded with security and of little foresight never considering of dangers until the means of remedy were past You write that they thought they might have done this with a good conscience for the good of the Realm But what good conscience could they have in defiling their faith Such consciences you endeavour to frame in all men to break an oath with as great facility as a Squirrell can crack a Nut. What good also did ensue unto the Realm The Nobility were set into factions the common people into division and disorder and as in Wars where discipline is at large there insolencies are infinite so in this confusion of the State there was no action which tended not to the ruin thereof the Lives and Goods of Men remaining in continual pillage Polydore saith Matrons were violated Virgins ravished Churches spoiled Towns and Villages rased much Cattle destroyed innumerable Men slain Into this miserable face of extremities the Realm did fall and into the same again you strive to reduce it But you say that for the ending of these Mischiefs the States in a Parliament at Wallingford made an Agreement that Stephen should be King during his life and that Henry and his Off-spring should succeed after his death A man would think you had a mint of Fables there is no History which you handle but you defile it with apish untruths All our Histories agree that King Stephen unable to range things into better form did adopt Henry to be his Successor The second Huntington saith that this agreement was mediated by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester who repented him of the furtherance he gave to the advancement of King Stephen when he saw what Miseries did thereupon ensue The like doth Hoveden report and Holingshead setteth down the form of the Charter of agreement between them whereby it is evident that it was a transaction between them two and no compulsory act or authority of the State I deny not but some Authors affirm that the King assembled the Nobility but neither were they the States of the Realm neither were they assembled to any other end but to swear Fealty unto Henry saving the King's Honour so long as he should live After the death of King Richard the first you affirm that the Succession was again broken for that Iohn Brother to King Richard was admitted by the States and Arthur Duke of Britain Son to Geoffry Elder brother unto Iohn was against the ordinary course of Succession excluded Well Sir I arrest your word remember this I pray you for I will put you in mind thereof in another place That which here you affirm to be against the ordinary course of Succession you bring in another place for proof that the Uncle hath right before the Nephew You do wildy waver in variety of Opinion speaking flat contrary according as the Ague of your passion is either in fit or intermission The History of King Iohn standeth thus King Richard the first dying without issue left behind him a Brother named Iohn and a Nepew called Arthur Son of Geoffry who was Elder Brother unto Iohn This Arthur was appointed by King Richard to succeed in his Estate as Polydore writeth Nubrigensis saith that he should have been established by consent of the Nobility if the Britains had not been so foolishly either suspicious or fond that when King Richard sent for him they refused to commit him into his Uncles hands But after the death of King Richard his Brother Iohn seized upon his Treasure in Normandy came over into England and in an Assembly only of the Nobility was crowned King Of these many he won with such liberal Protestations and Promises as men careless of their word are wont to bestow others were abused by the persuasions of Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury and a few others saith Polydore not well advised Nic. Trivet saith that Iohn pretended for his Title not the election of the People but propinquity of Blood and the testament of King Richard The same also is affirmed by Walsingham And this is the Question between the Uncle and the Nephew of which I shall have occasion to speak hereafter But Polydore saith That divers Noble-men did account this to be a fraudulent Injustice and thereupon did ominate those Evils which afterward did ensue And when the Archbishop was charged That under colour of Reason partly subborned and partly weak he had beene
Agesilaus also the famous King of Lacedaemon was lame as Plutarch and Probus Aemilius do report Paul Orosius saith that the Lacedaemonians did choose to have their King halt rather than their Kingdom Heredotus also writeth that after the death of Codrus King of Athens Medon his eldest son and Neleus the next did contend for the Kingdom because Neleus would not give place to Medon who was by reason of his lame legs if not unable yet unapt to govern The matter being almost brought to the sentence of the sword it was mediated between them that the controversie should be decided by the Oracle of Apollo Apollo was consulted by whose Judgment Medon was declared King Iosephus 1 hath left recorded that Aristobulus and Hircanus after a long and cruel contention for the Kingdom of Jury made Pompey the Judge of that right which by arms they were unable to decide Hircanus alleaged that he was Eldest brother Aristobulus excepted that Hircanus was insufficient to govern a Realm Hereupon Pompey gave sentencè that Aristobulus should give over the Kingdom which he did usurp and Hircanus be restored to his Estate The like Judgment doth Livy write that Annibal gave for the Kingdom of that Country which is now called Savoy restoring Brancus unto his right from which he had been by his younger brother expelled And although Pyrrus did appoint that Son to succeed whose sword had the best edge yet was the eldest acknowledged who bare the least reputation for valour Lisander moved the Lacedaemonians to decree that the most sufficient and not always the next in bloud of the line of Hercules should be admitted to the Kingdom yet Plutarch saith that he found no man to second his advise I will add an example of later times Ladislaus a man more famous for the sanctity of his life then for his Kingdom of Hungary left by his brother Grisa two Nephews Colomannus the elder who was dwarfy lame crook-backt crab-faced blunt and blear-eyed a stammerer and which is more a Priest and Almus the younger a man free from just exception Yet these respects set aside a dispensation was obtained from the Pope and Colomannus notwithstanding his deformities and defects was accepted by the people for King Girard writeth that the custom of the French was to honour their Kings whatsoever they were whether foolish or wise able or weak esteeming the Name of King to be sacred by whomsoever it should be born And therefore they supported in Estate not only Charls the simple but Charls the 6. also who raigned many years in open distemperature and disturbance of mind So you see that the practise of many Nations have been contrary to your conceit and that the interpreters of the civil and Canon Law good arbitrators of natural equity either bare against you or stand for you only when disability is natural adding further that if the excluded successor hath a Son before or after succession doth fall free from any such defect the right of the Kingdom descendeth unto him This affirmeth Baldus Socinus Cardinal Alexander and before them Andreas Iserna Because the Inability of Parents doth not prejudice the Children especially in regard of their natural Rights neither is it any impediment wherefore they should not enjoy either priviledge or dignity from the person of their Grand-father Magis est saith Vlpian vt avi potius dignitas prosit quam obsit casus patris It is fitter that the Son should receive profit by the dignity of his Granfather then prejudice by his Fathers chance And this we may think is a reasonable respect wherefore other interpreters have not allowed their principal opinion in repelling him who is disabled by birth For if another be once possessed of his place it will be hard for any of his Children to attaine their right Whereupon disunion factions Wars may easily arise It is inconvenient I grant to be governed by a King who is defective in body or in mind But it is a greater inconvenience by making a breach in this high Point of State to open an Entrance for all disorders wherein ambition and insolency may range at large For as mischief is of that Nature that it cannot stand but by supportance of another Evil and so multiplyeth in it self till it come to the highest and then doth ruine with the proper weight So minds once exceeding the bounds of obedience cease not to strengthen one boldness by another until they have involved the whole State in confusion We find that Gabriel the youngest brother of the House of Saluse kept his Eldest brother in close Priâ—on usurped his Estate and gave forth for satisfaction to the People that he was mad I could report many like Examples But I shall have occasion to speak more hereof in the further passage betwixt us After this you conclude three points 1 That inclination to live in company is of nature 2 That Government and Jurisdiction of Magistrates is also of nature 3 That no one particular Form of Government is natural for then it should be the same in all Countries seeing God and Nature is one to all But before I joyn with you either in contradiction or consent it shall not be amiss to declare briefly what we understand by the law of nature and by what means it may 〈◊〉 known God â—n the creation of man imprinted certain rules within hiâ— soul to direct him in all the actions of his life Which rules because we took them when we took our Being are commonly called the primary Law of Nature Of which sort the canons accompt these precepts following To worship God To obey Parents and Governors and thereby to conserve common society lawful conjunction of man and woman succession of children education of children acquisition of things which pertain to no man equal liberty of all to communicate commodities to repel force to hurt no man and generally to do to another as he would be done unto which is the sum and substance of the second table of the decalogue And this Law Thomas Aquine affirmeth to be much depraved by the fall of man and afterwards more by error evil custom pertinacy and other corrupters of the mind and yet doth it yield us so large light that Saint Paul did esteem it sufficient to condemn the Gentiles who had no other Law written Out of these precepts are formed certain customs generally observed in all parts of the World which because they were not from the beginning but brought in afterward some as a consequence or collection others as a practise or execution of the first natural precepts are called the secondary Law of nature and by many also the Law of Nations Gaius ' saith that which natural reason doth constitute among all men is observed by all alike and termed the Law of Nations and the same is called by Iustinianâ— the Law of Nature Cicero likewise saith the consent of all Nations is to
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
you would not thus openly oppose the setlings of your rotten brain against the express and direct sentence of God What is it a damnable sin to do every man right is it damnable to give Caesar that which is his due to give tribute honour fear to whom they appertain The Apostle saith that Christians by resisting the power of Infidel Rulers do acquire unto themselves damnation and shall we yield credit unto you that Turks Moors Infidels should damnably sin either in admitting or enduring the authority of a Christian Prince How cheap do you value the judgments of men at how low rate do you prize both your conscience and credit I could rise into riot of words upon you were it not that I respect what is seemly rather for me to speak then for you to hear Certainly if we had received no such commandement from God the regard of the quiet of humane societies is sufficient to overwhelm your Heritical Assertion for seeing there are many different professions of Religion not only in the World but almost in every Nation of the World seeing also Cas Philo saith every man either by use or instruction judgeth his own Religion best what surety could any Prince what safety could any people enjoy if your fiery opinion should take place what assurance can there be of Life or of State where the Sword beareth sway upon such occasions and that guided by hands both Tumultuous and fierce And seeing among many Religions there can be but one Truth if all Men should be obstinately bent against the Government of any who in their Judgment is Faulty in Religion what likelihood can we either conceive or conjecture but that many Errors would soon prevail against the only Truth And therefore 't is far more moderate and safe to use the ordinary means both of maintaining and propagating the truth and to commit the success thereof unto God and as Iosephus adviseth not to offer either conâ—umelie or violence against any Religion lest we provoke thereby the Professors thereof to do the like against ours Your last Reason is drawn from Policy and consideration of State because a King will neither trust nor favour much less advance him that is not of the same Religion with himself but to the contrary he shall be Subject to all molestations injuries and other aversions which are incident to those who are not current with the present course of affairs Oh Sir this is the Helene for which you contend you concur in opinion with those Athenians of whom Alexander demanded divine honours not so obstinately to defend Heaven as to lose the benefit of the Earth This is the mark whereat you aime this is the Compass whereby you sail as divers flowers do open and close according to the Motion of the Sun so according to the variation hereof you extend or restrain your plyant Conscience as you please But the Appostle teacheth us to be obedient to higher Powers for Conscience sake and not for any private respect Besides all Princes are not of that disposition whereof you speak Suidas writeth of one who changeing Religion to please his King was therefore adjudged to lose his head one being appointed to cry at the time of his Execution He that keepeth not Faith with God what sound Conscience can he bear towards Men The Protestants in France are not alltogether cast either out of Favour or out of Charge and many Roman Catholicks in England do enjoy their full part of all the plenty and pleasures that the Realme can afford Lastly what have you to do with Reasons of State This is the Eagles Feather which consumeth your devotion Your Office is to meditate to pray to instruct men in pure Devotion to settle their Souls in Piety and in Peace But do you contain your selves within these limits nothing less You take upon you the Policy of State you rend and deface the reputation of Kings you make your selves both judges and moderators of all their actions allowing them to fly no further then you give them wings You dispose not only their Affairs but their Crowns at your pleasure you hunt them not to Covert but to Death You contrive ways to compass your designs you train up your Followers in the high mistery of Treason you cast into every Realm the Apple of Strife your Doctrine is to no other use but as Drumms Fifes and Trumpets to Incense Fury To these ends you wrest Scriptures you corrupt Histories you counterfeit Reasons you corrupt all Truth pardon my plainness I pray you I have not attended to your dexterity in disguising matters with smooth terms you are obstinate to hazard rather all dangers then to be cut off from one point of your purpose You acknowledge no Religion but your Will no Law but your Power all Lies Treacheries and Frauds do change their Nature and become both lawfull and laudable actions when they bear for the advantage of your affairs But this is directed to devotion you will say and as you terme it ordine ad deum for a holy and Religious end Away then with your devotion and so we shall be rid of your dangerous deceit Away I say with your devotion or else we will conclude of you as Livie did of Anniball Nihil veri nihil sancti nullus deum metus nullum jusjurandum nulla religio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FINIS In. c. 1. tit de success feud In quaest aâ— rex Franciae recognoscaâ— superiorem In l. nemo D. de leg L. In l. cum praeror non autem D. de Judâ— Apud Aristor rhetor 3. ca. 10 Lib 5. In ceâ—psychore In ejuâ— vita Lib. 3. ca. 2 Ubl. 5. Antiqu. 14. ca. Lib. 1.2 belli Punici Allobroges In Lisandr Michael Riccius Lib 1 dâ— l' estate de France Cons. 389 lib. 1 Cons. 47 lib 3. In c. 1. tit an mutus vel imperfectus in c. vit Epis. vel ab Lib. 3. D. de interdic rel l. 2. C. de liberi cor lib. l. divi fratres D jur patâ— l. quae ritur D. de bo lib. panor cons. 85. lib. 1. Io. Anno. in c. significasti de fo comp In l. vii in si de senat c. lus naturale dist 3. 1.2 q. 94 d. 2 2 Rom. cap. 2. 3 Quod naturalis ratio inter omnes homines constituit id apud omnes peraeque custoditur vocaturque juâ— gentium l. ix D. de just jur Just. de rer diâ—â— singulorum In re consensio omnium gentium lex naturae putanda est 1 Thuscul In l. 1. C. de tâ—stam Socrat. In com ju 6. Ad ephes 4. Tit. C 3. de decret ab ord fac l. 32. de legi Ad Q. fratrem provocandum ad sensus Interiori nescâ—o qua conscientia iâ—â—aec seâ—timus de util cred Omne malum aut timore aut pudore natura perfudit in apol Licet possint negare non possunt tamen non erubeâ—cere 3. de offic 14.
by the Soldiers and sometimes by every legion one whereby such siers were kindled as could not be quenched without much blood For these wars are most cruelly executed because the quarrel leaveth no middle state inter summum praecipitium between the highest honor and the deadliest downfall For these and divers other respects it hath been observed at most times in all nations and at all times in most that the royalty hath passed by succession accoâ—ding to propinquity of blood We read that â—tolomy who after the death of Alexander the great seazed upon Aegypt and part also of Arabia and of Africk lest that state to his youngest son but Trogus said and out of him Iustine that it was against the Law of Nations and that upon this occasion one of them did work the death of the other And therefore when afterward Ptolomy surnamed Physcon at the importunity of his Wife Cleopatra would have preferred his youngest son to the succession of his Kingdom Iustine saith that the People opposed themselves against it but Pausanias more probably affirmeth that they reversed his order after his death The same course was held in Italy by the Hetruscanes Latines and those Albanes from whom the Romans took their original Livy writeth that Procas King of the Albanes appointed Numitor to succeed in his estate but Amulius his younger brother did usurp it by force hereupon Dionysius Halicarnasseus saith that Amulius held the Kingdom against right because it appertained to his Elder brother Among the Graecians during the space of six hundred Years wherein they were governed by Kings we find but Timondas and Pittacus who were elected the one of Corinth the other of Negropont the residue held their states by order of succession as Thucidides affirmeth encountring therein the opinion of Aristotle Livy writeth that Perseus King of Macedon said that by the order of Nature the Law of Nations and the ancient custom of Macedony the eldest son was to succâ—ed in the Kingdom Diodorus Siculus and Iustine do report that by this custom Alexander succeeded his father Amyntas before his yonger brother Philip. Herodotus declareth that the same order was observed among the Trojans affirming that after the death of Priamus the Kingdom was not to devolve unto Alexander because Hector was before him in years The same also doth appeare by that which Virgil writeth Praeterea Sceptrum Ilione quod gesserat olim Maxima natarum Priami The Scepter which Ilione when she the state did stay The first daughter of Priamus with royal hand did sway Out of which place Servius Maurus doth collect that women also did use to govern But more plainly this custome of the Troians doth appear by that which Messala Corvinus writeth that Trojus had two sons Ilus and Assaracus and that Ilus by priviledge of his age succeeeded in the Kingdom The Persians also who for a long time held the reins of all the nations near unto them had the same order of succession as Zenophon witnesseth which is also confirmed by two famous histories one between Artaxerxes Cyrus whereof Plutarch maketh mention the other between Artabazanes Xerxes reported by Herodotus and Iustin wherein Artabazanes alledged that it was a custom among all men that the eldest son should first succeed Agathocles out of him Athenaeus do write that the Persians had a golden water for so they term it whereof it was capital for any man to drink but only the king and his eldest son Whither this water were drawn out of the River Euleus which invironeth the Tower Susis and the Temple of Diana whereof Pliny writeth that only the kings of Persia did drink or whether of Choaspis whose waters Herodotus doth report to have bin boiled and carried after the king in silver vessels or whether both these were one River I will neither determine nor discourse In Siria which is called Assiria as Herodotus writeth and also Phoenicia Palestina and Mesopotamia as appeareth by Pliny Eusebius and divers other the same custom is proved by that which Iustine and L. Florus do write that Demetrius having bin delivered by his brother Antiochus King of Siria for an hostage to the Romans and hearing of the death of Antiochus declared to the Senate in open assembly that as by the law of nations he had given place to his elder Brother so by the same law the right of succession was then cast upon him The Parthians who being thrice attempted by the Romans in the time of their chiefest both discipline and strength were able to bear themselves victorious did always acknowledge for their king the next of the blood of their first King Arsaces Among the Germans also who were of force to defeat five consulare armies of the Romans Tacitus affirmeth that the eldest Son did intirely succeed only the Horses did fall to the most valiant And that this was likewise the custom of the Iews it is evident by the whole History of their Kings especially where it is said that Ioram succeeded Iosaphat and the reason added because he was the eldest I should but burn day as the saying is in running further upon particulars Herodotus doth advow it to be a general custom among all men that the first in birth is next in succession Certain ages after him S. Hierome said that a Kingdom is due unto the eldest In late ages our selves may see that the Tartars Turks Persians and all the Asiaticks have no other form of constituting their Kings No other is followed in all the Countries of Africk In the west Indies no other is yet discovered Insomuch as when Frances Pizarre in the Conquest of Peru had slain Atibalippa the King thereof the people brake into shew some of joy all of contentment because he had made his way to the Kingdom by murthering of his Elder brother In Europe it is not long sinâ—e all the Monarchies were successive When the Empire of Almain was made elective it became in short time so either troublesome or base that divers Princes refused to accept it of late it hath been setled in one Family but hath as yet little increased eitheir in dignity or in power The people of Denmark Sweden Hungary and Boeme do chalenge to themselves a right of election but they accept their King by propinquity of bloud So they did in Polonia until the line of Iagello was worn out and then they elected for King Henry Duke of Aniou in France since which time they have always in the change of their Kings exposed their state to open danger of ruine Upon this both general and continual custom Boldus saith that Kingdoms are successive by the Law of Nations affirming further that always it hath been and always it shall be that the first born succeedeth in a Kingdom wherein he is either followed or accompanied with a fair Crie of all the choise
interpreters of both Laws as namely the Glossographer Iohan. Andreas Hostiensis Collect. Pet. Anchoranus Antonius Imola Card. Florentinus Abb. Panormitanus Oldradus Albericus Angelus Felinus Paul Castrensis Alexander Barbatius Franc. Curtius Guido Pape Card. Alexander Philip. Francus Iason Philippus Decius Carol. Ruinus Anto. Corsetta Ripa Calderine Alciate and many other of somwhat more ordinary name Who all with full voice do agree that in Kingdoms and other dignities â—hich cannot be either valued or divided but they are dismembred the eldest Son doth entirely succeed And this many of them do call the Law of all Nations derived from the order of nature and from the institution of God and confirmed by the Canon civil and other positive Laws For the Succession of Children is one of the primary precepts of nature whereby his mortality is in some sort repaired and his continuance perpetuated by his posterity But among all the Children nature seemeth to prefer the first born by imprinting in the mind of parents the greatest love and inclination towards them as divers of the authors before alleaged do affirm and as it may appear by that of the prophet Zacharie and they shall lament over him as men use to lament in the death of their first born and likewise by that which is said of David that he would not grieve his Son Ammon for that he loved him because he was his first born Hereupon Lyra and before him Saint Augustin and Saint Chrysostom do affirm that the last plague of the Egyptians which was the death of their first born was the most sharp and heavy unto them For nothing saith Saint Augustin is more dear than the first born Aristotle Plinie Aelian and Tzetzes do write that the same affection is also found in certain beasts And to this purpose is that which Herodotus reporteth that when the Lacedaemonians had received an oracle â—hat they should take for Kings the two sons of Aristodemus and Aegina but give most honor unto the eldest and they were ignorant which was eldest because the Mother and the Nurse refused to declare it they observed which of the children the mother did wash and feed first and thereby found out that Eristhenes was the eldest Lucian citeth the love of the first born as grown into a proverb Gregorie Nazianzene saith that all men have a sense thereof Saint Ambrose writeth that in this respect God called the People of Israel his first born for that they were not most ancient but best beloved Lastly S. Chrysostome affirmeth that the first born were to be esteemed more honorable than the rest And this natural precedence both in honor and in favor seemeth to be expresly ratified by God first where he said unto Cain of his brother Abel His desires shall be subject unto thee and thou shalt have dominion over him according to which institution when Iacob had bought his brothers right of birth Isaac blessed him in these words Be Lord over thy Brethren and lâ—t the sons of thy mother bow before thee Secondly where he forbiddeth the Father to disinherit the first Son of his double portion because by right of birth it is his due Thirdly where he maketh choice of the first born to be sanctified to himself And whereas God hath often preferred the youngest as Abel Isaac Iacob Iuda Phares Ephraim Moses David Solomon and others it was no other than that which Christ said that many that were last should be first and that which Saint Paul hath delivered that God hath chosen the weak and base and contemptible things of this world least any flesh should glory in his sight So hath Herodotus written how Artabanus the Persian in a complaining manner did confess that God delighted to depress those things that were high But if the first born dye before succession fall or if being possessed of the Kingdom he dye without issue his right of birth devolveth unto the next in blood and if he dyeth in like manner then unto the third and so likewise to the rest in order This is affirmed by Albericus and may be confirmed by that which Baldus saith that succession hath reference to the time of death and respecteth the priority which is then extant And again He is not said the first born in Law who dyeth before the fee openeth but he who at that time is eldest in life And this opinion is embraced by Alciate because as Celsus saith Primus is dicitur ante quem nemo sit He is first who hath none before him Iaco. Aretinus Cinus Albericus and Baldus do form this case There is a custom that the first born of the first marriage should succeed in a baronny a certain baron had three Wives by the first he had no Children by the other too many the first son of the second marriage shall succeed Because as the glossographer there saith the second marriage in regard of the third is accompted first Baldus doth extend it further that if he hath a son by the first marriage and he refuse the barony the first son by the second marriage shall succeed in his right and so he saith it was determined in the Kingdom of Apulia when Lewes the Kings eldest son was professed a friar And this decision is allowed by Alexander Oldradus and Antonius Corsetta and is proved by plain text of the Canon Law both where the second born is called first born when the first born hath given place and also where he is called the only son whose brother is dead But because it is a notorious custom that the nearest in blood doth succâ—ed altho perhaps removed in degree I will labor no more to load it with proof for who will proclaim that the sun doth shine But if we should now grant unto you which is a greater courtesie than with modesty you can require that no particular form of Government is natural what will you conclude thereof what inference can you hereupon enforce That thâ—re is no doubt but the People have power to choose and to change the fashion of Government and to limit the same with what conditions they please What Sir can you find no third But that either one form of Government is natural or that the People must always retain such liberty of power Have they no power to relinquish their power Is there no possibility that they may loose it Whether are you so ignorant to think as you speak or so deceitful to speak otherwise then you think There is no Authority which the People hath in matters of state but it may be either bound or streightned by three means The first is by cession or grant for so the Romans by the Law of royalty yeelded all their Authority in Government to the Prince Of this Law Vlpian maketh mention and Bodin reporteth that it is yet extant in Rome graven in stone So the People of Cyrene of Pergame and of Bithynia did submit themselves
Haro Lord of Biscay to procure him to be advanced to the succession of the Kingdom before his Nephews D. Lope undertook the devise and drawing some other of the Nobility to the party they so wrought with the King that in an Assembly of the States at Segovia Sancho was declared Successor and the Children of Ferdinand appointed to be kept in Prison But Sancho either impatient to linger in expectation or suspitious that his Father grew inclinable towards his Nephews made a League with Mahomed Mir King of Granado a Moor by whose aid and by the Nobility of his Faction he caused himself to be declared King Hereupon Alphonso was enforced to crave assistance of Iacob Aben Ioseph King of Morocco who before had been an Enemy to Alphonso but upon detestation of his unnatural Rebellion he sent Forces to him protesting notwithstanding that so soon as the War should be ended he would become his Enemy again So Alphonso by help partly of the Morocco Moors and partly of his Subjects which remained loyal maintained against his son both his Title and State during his life but not without extremity of bloodshed and opportunity for the Moors being assistant to both parties to make themselves more strong within the Countries of Spain For this cause Alphonso disinherited his son by his Testament and cast a cruel curse upon him and his Posterity and afterward it was ordained in an Assembly of the States holden at Tero that the Children of the elder Brother deceased should be preferred before their Uncle How then will you verifie your two points by this History First that Alphonso was deprived by a publick Act of Parliament Secondly that it turned to the great Commodity of the State It is not a million of Masses that are sufficient to satisfie for all your deceitful and malicious untruths I marvel how the Rebellion of Absolon against King David his Father escaped you Oh it wanted success and you could not easily disguise the Report You write that the Commonwealth of Spain resolving to depose Don Pedro the cruel sent for his Brother Henry out of France and required him to bring a strength of Frenchmen with him But hereby you make it plain that the Commonwealth was not fully agreed The truth is that this was a dangerous division of the State between two Concurrents some holding for Henry and some for Pedro Henry obtained forraign Assistance by the French Pedro by the English In the mean time whilst Peter was thrown out of State by the Forces of France and after that Henry by the Arms of England and again Peter dejected both from dignity and life the poor Country became a Spectacle for one of your Enterludes Your Example of Don Sancho Capello King of Portugal containeth many intollerable untruths for neither was he deprived of his dignity neither did the Pope and Council of Lions give either authority or consent that he should be deprived neither was he driven out of his Realm into Castilla neither died he in banishment neither was Alphonso his Brother King during his liâ—e These five untruths you huddle into one heap The Council of Lions wholly opposed against the deposing of Don Sancho notwithstanding many disabilities were objected against him in regard whereof they gave direction that Alphonso his Brother should be Regent of the Realm as in that case it is both usual and fit But Sancho taking this to dislike did seek Aid of the King of Castile and in that pursuit ended his life without Issue whereby the right of Succession devolved to Alphonso To your Examples of Greek Emperours I will answer by your words which are That for the most part they came not orderly to the Crown but many times the means thereof were tribulent and seditious The deposing of Henry King of Polonia I acknowledge to be both true and just I have nothing to except against it When the Crown of France did descend unto him he forsook Polonia and refused to return again to that swaggering Government whereupon they did depose him Give us the like case and you shall be allowed the like proceeding but you esteem your Examples by tale and not by touch being not much unlike a certain mad Fellow in Athens who imagined every Ship which was brought into the Haven to be his For whatsoever you find of a King deposed you lay claim unto it as both lawfully done and pertaining to your purpose whereas one of these doth always fail Concerning your two Examples one of Sweden and the other of Denmark I shall have occasion to speak hereafter The Nobility of those Countries pretend that their Kings are not Soveraign but that the power in highest matters of State pertaineth unto them If it be thus the Examples are not appliable to the Question if it be otherwise then the Princes had wrong We are now come to our domestical Examples the first whereof is that of King Iohn who was deposed by the Pope you say at the suit of his own people All this people was the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Ely at whose complaint the Pope did write to Philip King of France that he should expel King Iohn out of his Realm If not Conscience if not ordinary Honesty pure Shame should have drawn you to another form of writing He was also deprived you say afterwards by his Barons Hâ—avy Beast call you this a Deprivation The Commons were never called to consent the Clergy were so opposite to those that stood in Arms against King Iohn that they procured Excommunication against them first â—â—â—â—câ—ally then by name lastly Lewes the French Kings son was also included Of the Nâ—bâ—lity which is onely the third State of the Realm I make no doubt but some reserved themselves to be guided by success others and namely the Earls of Warren Arundel Chester Pembrooke Ferrers Salisbury and divers Barons did openly adhere unto King Iohn You may as well call any other Rebellion a Deprivation as affirm that the rest either did or might deprive him And whereas you bring in King Henry the Third as a most worthy Successor after this Deprivation I will derogate nothing from his worthiness but there was never King in England who without concurrent in the Title of the Crown did draw more bloud out of the sides of his Subjects Your second Example is of King Edward the Second whom many of our Histories report to be of a good and courteous nature and not unlearned imputing his defects rather to Fortune than either to counsel or carriage of his Affairs His Deposition was a violent fury led by a Wife both cruel and unchast and can with no better countenance of right be justified than may his lamentable both indignities and death which thereupon did ensue And although the Nobility by submitting themselves to the government of his Son did break those occasions of Wars which do usually rise upon such Disorders yet did not the hand
the Prince hereby affected the person is both tyed and touched in honour the authority ceaseth not if performances do fail Of this sort was that which you report of Trajan who in delivering the Sword to his Governors would say If I reign justly then use it for me if otherwise then use it against me But where you adde that these are the very same words in effect which Princes do use at their Coronations pardon me for it is fit I should be moved you will find it to be a very base lye Of this nature was that also which the same Trajan did to encourage his Subjects to do the like in taking an Oath to observe the Laws which Pliny the younger did account so strange as the like before had not been seen But afterward Theodoric did follow that fact whereupon Cassiodorus saith Ecce Trajani nostri clarum seculis reparamus exemplum jurat vobis per quem juratis We repair the famous example of Trajan he sweareth to you by whom you swear So when King Henry the Fifth was accepted for Successor to the Crown of France he made promise to maintain the Parliament in the liberties thereof And likewise divers Princes do give their faith to maintain the priviledges of the Church and not to change the Laws of the Realm which Oath is interpreted by Baldus Panormitane and Alexander to extend no further than when the Laws shall be both profitable and just because Justice and the common benefit of Subjects is the principal point both of the Oath and Duty of a Prince whereto all other clauses must be referred And now to your Examples First because in all the rank of the Hebrew Kings you cannot find either Condition or Oath not in the ancient Empires and Kingdoms of the world not usually in the flourishing time of the Roman State both under Heathen and Christian Emperours because these times are too pure for your purpose you fumble forth a dull Conjecture That forsomuch as the first Kings were elected by the People it is like that they did it upon conditions and assurances for themselves That the first Kings received not their Authority from the people I have manifested before and yet your inference hereupon is no other than if you should sue in some Court for a Legacy alleadging nothing for your intent but that it is like the Testator should leave you something in which case it is like I suppose that your Plea would be answered with a silent scorn After a few loose Speeches which no man would stoop to gather together you bring in the example of Anastasius the first Emperour of Constantinople of whom the Patriarch Euphemius required before his Coronation a Confession of the Faith in writing wherein he should promise to innovate nothing And further he promised to take away certain Oppressions and to give Offices without money Let us take things as they are and not speak upon idle imagination but agreeable to sence What either Condition or Restraint do you find in these words Condition they do not form because in case of failance they do not make the Authority void neither do they make Restraint because they contain no point whereunto the Law of God did not restrain him All this he was bound to perform without an Oath and if he were a thousand times sworn he was no more but bound to perform it even as if a Father should give his word to cloath and feed his Child or the Husband to love his Wife or any man to discharge that duty which God and Nature doth require It is true that Anastasius was both a wicked man and justly punished by God for the breach of his Faith but his Subjects did never challenge to be free therefore from their Allegiance The same Answer may be given to the Promise which Michael the first gave to Nicephorus the Patriarch That he would not violate the Ordinances of the Church nor embrue his hands with innocent bloud especially if you take the word Ordinances for matters necessary to be believed but if you take it in a larger sence then have I also declared in the beginning of this Chapter how far the Promise doth extend Your next Example is of the Empire of Almain from whence all that you object doth fall within this circle After the death of Charles the Great the Empire was held by Right of Succession until his Line was determined in Conrade the First After whose death it became Elective first in Henry Duke of Saxony then in Otho his son and afterwards in the rest from whom notwithstanding no other promise was wrested but the discharge of that duty which they were informed or rather threatned that God would severely exact at their hands But as in all Elective States it usually happeneth at every new change and choice the Emperour was deplumed of some of his Feathers until in the end he was made naked of Authority the Princes having drawn all power to themselves So by degrees the Empire was changed from a Monarchy to a pure Aristocracy the Emperour bearing the Title thereof but the Majesty and Puissance remaining in the States During which weakness of the Emperour some points were added to his Oath which seemed to derogate from the soveraignty of his estate But what is this to those Princes who have retained their dignity without any diminution either of Authority or of Honour The like may be said of Polonia which not many hundred years since was erected into a Kingdom and although the States did challenge therein a right of Election yet did it always pass according to propinquity of bloud and was esteemed a soveraign Monarchy until after the death of Casimire the Great when Lodovicus his Nephew King of Hungary rather greedy than desirous to be King also of Polonia did much abase the Majesty thereof Yet falling afterward into the Line of Iagello who married one of the daughters of Lodowiek it recovered the ancient both dignity and strength But when that Line also failed in Sigismond Augustus the last Male of that Family the States elected Henry Duke of Anjou for their King with this clause irritant That if he did violate any point of his Oath the people should owe him no Allegiance But whereas you report this as the usual Oath of the Kings of Polonia you deserve to hear the plainest term of untruth In the Kingdom of Spain you distinguish two times one before the Conquest thereof by the Moors the other after it was recovered again by the Christians I acknowledge a difference in these two times for that in the one the Right of the Kingdom was Elective in the other it hath always remained Successive insomuch as Peter Belluga a diligent Writer of the Rights of Arragon doth affirm that the people have no power in electâ—on of the King except in case the Line should fail Concerning the matter in controversie you affirm that the Kings did swear
Henry Huntington also and out of him Polydore do write that upon confidence of his power he invaded the Crown which usurpation gave both encouragement and successe to the Enterprise of the Normans This short passage of History you do defile with so many untruths that it seemeth you have as natural a gift to falsifie as to eat drink or sleep But where you write that William the Conqueror formed any title by consent of the Realm you grow into the degree of ridiculous We find that he pretended the Institution of King Edward which had neither probability nor force and that he was nearer to him in blood than Harold the Usurper but that he ever pretended the Election of the People it is your own clouted conceit For when he had routed the English Army in the field when he had sacked their Towns harrassed their Villages slain much people and bent his Sword against the breasts of the rest what free Election could they then make Your self acknowledge also in another place that he came to the Crown by dint of Sword and at his death his own conscience constrained him to confesse that he took it without right And in that the Pope and the French King favoured his enterprise it is not material this is not the first injustice which they have assisted Neither was it the Popes hallowed Banner as you affirm but the Bow and the Arrow the only weapon of advantage long time after to this Nation whereby he did obtain the Victory One help he had also within the Realm for that King Edward had advanced divers Normans to high place both of Dignity and Charge who gave unto him much secret both incouragement and assistance in his Attempt And thus in all these turbulent times you are so far from finding five or six that you are short of any one who was made King by free Authority of the People King William Rufus made no other Title to the Crown but the Testament of his Father For often use hath confirmed it for Law that a Victor may freely dispose of the Succession of that State which he hath obtained by the purchase of his Sword The Conqueror disinherited his Eldest Son Robert for that joining with Philip King of France he invaded wasted and spoiled Normandy and joyned in open battel against his Father wherein the Father was unhorsed and wounded and brought to a desperate distress of his Life Hereupon he cast forth a cruel Curse against his Son which he could never be intreated to revoke in so much that upon his death-bed he said of him that it was a miserable Countrey which should be subject to his Dominion for that he was a proud and foolish Knave and to be long scourged with cruel Fortune And whereas you write that at the time of his Fathers death he was absent in the war of Ierusalem it is a very negligent untruth But it is an idle untruth that you write that Henry the first had no other Title to the Crown but the Election of the People He never was Elected by the People he never pretended any such Title Nubrigensis and after him Polydore do report that he laid his Title because he was born after his Father was King Malmesbury saith Henry the youngest Sons of William the Great being an Infant according to the desires and wishes of all men was excellently brought up because he alone of all the Sons of William was Princely born and the Kingdom seemed to appertain unto him He was born in England in the third year after his Father entred into it And this was the like Controversie to that which Herodotus reporteth to have happened between the Sons of Darius the Son of Hystaspis King of Persia when he prepared an expedition against the Grecians and Aegyptians because by the Laws of Persia the King might not enter into enterprise of Arms before he had declared his Successor Darius had three Children before he was King by his first Wife the Daughter of Gobris and after he attained the Kingdom he had other four by Anrosa the Daughter of Cyrus Artabazanes was eldest of the first sort Xerxes of the second Artabazanes alledged that he was eldest of all the Kings children and that it was the Custom amongst all men that the eldest should enjoy the Principality Xerxes alledged that he was begotten of Atossa the daughter of that King by whose puissance the Persians had gained not onely Liberty but also Power Before Darius had given sentence Demaratus the son of Aristo cast out of his Kingdom of Sparta came unto Xerxes and advised him to alledge further that he was the eldest son of Darius after he was king and that it was the Custom of Sparta that if any man had Children in private estate and afterward another son when he was King this last son should be his Successor upon which ground Darius pronounced in the bealf of Xerxes The same History is reported by Iustine and touched also by Plutarch although they differ both from Herodotus and one from the other in some points of circumstances Hereto also agreeth that which Iosephus writeth in reprehending King Herod for excluding Alexander and Aristobulus his Sons and appointing Antipater born to him in private estate to succeed in his Kingdom Many great Lawyers have subscribed their opinions to this kind of title and namely Pet. Cynus Baldus Albericus Raph. Fulgosius Rebuffus and Anto. Corsetta delivereth it for a common opinion But with this exception if the kingdom be acquired by any other title then by succession according to proximity in blood for in this case because the dignity is inherent in the stock the eldest Son shall succeed although he were born before his father was King And therefore Plutarch writeth that after the kingdom of Persia was setled in succession when Darius the King had four Sons Artaxerxes the Eldest Cyrus the next and two other Parysatis his wife having a desire that Cyrus should succeed in the kingdom pressed in his behalf the same reason wherewith Xerxes had prevailed before affirming that she had brought forth Artaxerxes to Darius when he was a private man but Cyrus when he was a king Yet Plutarch writeth that the reason which she used was nothing probable and that the eldest was designed to be King Howsoever the right stood between Robert Duke of Normandie and his younger brothers the fact did not stand either with the quiet or safetie of the Realm For during the reigne of William Rufus it was often infested upon this quarrel both with foreign arms and civil seditions which possessed all places with disorder and many also with fire rapine and bloud the principal effects of a licentious war These mischiefs not onely continued but encreased in the reigne of King Henry untill Robert the eldest brother was taken prisoner in the field which put a period to all his