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
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
World You close your conclusion with this conceit that the word natural Prince or natural Successor is to be understood of one who is born within the same Realm and that it is ridiculous to take it as though any Prince had natural Interest to succeed But what construction will you then make of that which Herodian delivereth in the speech of Commodus the Son of Marcus Now hath fortune given me unto you for Prince in his stead not drawn into the state such as they were who were before me nor as one that glorieth in the purchase of the Empire for I only am born unto you and brought up in the Court never swathed in private Cloaths but so soon as I was born the imperial purpure did receive me and the Sun beheld me at once both a Man and a Prince Consider these things and honor your Prince by right who is not given but born vnto you Girard goeth further in writing of Charles the Simple that he was King before he was born Say therefore again that it is ridiculous to take the word natural Prince for one that hath right of succession inherent in him by birth and I will say that this mirth will better beseem a natural indeed then any man that is wise But let us now consider the further passage of your discourse both how you are able to fortifie this foundation and what building it is able to bare TO THE SECOND CHAPTER which is intituled Of the particular Form of Monarchies and Kingdoms and the different Laws whereby they are to be obtained holden and governed in divers Countries according as each Common-wealth hath chosen and established IN this chapter you spend much speech in praising a monarchie and preferring it before the Government of manie which you do to no other end but to insinuate your self either into credit or advantage to draw it down even as Ioab presented Amasa with a kind Kiss to win thereby opportunity to stab him For in the end you fetch about that because a Prince is subject as other men not only to errours in Judgment but also to passionate affections in his will it was necessary that as the common wealth hath given that great power unto him so it should assigne him helps for managing the same And that a Prince reciveth his authority from the people you prove a little before for that Saint Peter termeth Kings Humane creatures which you interpret to be a thing created by man because by mans free choise both this form of government is erected and the same also laid upon some particular person I know not in what sort to deal with you concerning this interpretation Shall I labour to impugne it by arguments Why there is no man that wanteth not either judgment or sincerity but upon both the natural and usual sense of the words he will presently acknowledg it to be false Shall I go about either to laugh or to rail you from your errour as Cicero in the like case perswaded to do But this would be agreeable neither to the stayedness of our years nor the gravity of our professions I am now advised what to do I will appeal as Machetes did before Philip of Macedon from your self asleep to your self awake from your self distempered by affection to your self returned to sobriety of sense Do you think then in true earnest that a human creature is a thing created by man or rather that every man is a humane creature Is a brutish creature to be raken for a thing created by a beast Spiritual Angelical or any other adjunct unto creature what reference hath it to the Author of Creation And if it were so then should all creatures be called divine because they were created by God to whom only it is proper to create and in this very point Saint Paul saith that all authority is the ordinance and institution of God Neither needeth it to trouble us that Saint Peter should so generally injoine us to be obedient to all men no more than it troubled the Apostles when Christ commanded them to preach to all creatures according to which commission St. Paul did testifie that the Gospel had been preached to every creature under Heaven but St. Peter doth specifie his general speech and restrain his meaning to Kings and Governors in which sence St. Ambrose citeth this place as it followeth Be subject to your Lords whether it be to the King as to the most excellent c. This interpretation not onely not relieving you but discovering very plainly either the weakness or corruption of your judgment it resteth upon your bare word that Kings have received their first Authority from the people which although I could deny with as great both countenance and facility as you affirm yet will I further charge upon you with strength of proof Presently after the inundation of the world we find no mention of politick Government but onely of oeconomical according as men were sorted in families for so Moses hath written that of the progeny of Iapheth the Isles of the Gentiles were divided after their families The first who established Government over many families was Nimrod the Son of Cush accounted by St. Chrysostome the first King which Authority he did not obtain by favour and election of any people but by plain purchase of his power Hereupon Moses calleth him a mighty Hunter which is a form of speech among the Hebrews whereby they signifie a spoiler or oppresser And this doth also appear by the etymology of his name for Nimrod signifieth a Rebel a Transgressour and as some interpret it a terrible Lord And names were not imposed in ancient times by chance or at adventure as Plato one of Natures chief Secretaries and among the Latin Writers Aul. Gellius do affirm Many hold opinion that this Nimrod was the same whom the Grecians call Ninus which seemeth to be confirmed by that which Moses saith that he did build the City of Ninive Of this Ninus Iustine writeth that he was the first who held that which he did subdue others satisfied with Victory aspired not to bear Rule Nimrod founded the Empire of the Assyrians which continued by Succession in his posterity until it was violently drawn from Sardanapalus to the Medes From them also Cyrus by subversion of Astyages did transport it to the Persians and from them again the Grecians did wrest it by Conquest After the death of Alexander his Captains without any consent of the people made partition of the Empire among them whose successors were afterwards subdued by the Armies and Arms of Rome And this Empire being the greatest that ever the Earth did bear was in the end also violently distracted by divers several either Conquests or Revolts Leo Afer writeth that it is not a hundred years since the people of Gaoga in Africk had neither King nor Lord until one observed the greatness and Majesty
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