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
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
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
were both declared and pursued by Decree of the State for publick Enemies of whom not any one either died a natural death or lived three years after it was further decreed that the Court where he was slain should be stopped up that the Ides of March should be called parricidium and that the Senate should never be assembled upon that day You say that Augustus was preferred in his place that is four and all within the compass of six Lines Augustus was never chosen Dictator Suetonius writeth that he entreated the people upon his knee not to charge him with that Office But Augustus Antonius and Lepidus did first knit in Arms by the name of Triumviri to revenge the death of Iulius Caesar whereupon a long cruel and doubtful War was set up which continued the space of twenty years first between these three and the Murtherers of Caesar then between Lepidus and the other two lastly between Augustus and Antonius and this was the sweet success of the murther of Caesar. Augustus after his Victory was made perpetual Tribune as Suetonius hath written Dio saith that he was freed from the power of the Laws as Pompey also had been before him Tacitus addeth that the people having their hearts broken with broils permitted him to rise into rule and to draw by degrees the whole Authority of the State into his hands And so it seemeth that the Royal Law was not yet established by which the people gave over their power in Government Whereupon some make good the Sentence which the Senate gave against Nero because the Soveraignty was not then by any express Act setled in the Emperour But where you bring the Succession of Vespasian as a good success of this Sentence against Nero it is a wild and witless untruth Galba succeeded next after Nero who was slain in a sedition raised by Otho Otho again was overcome in field by Vitellius whereupon he slew himself Lastly Vitellius was overthrown and slain by the Captains of Vespasian who was the fourth Emperour after Nero These Intestine Wars these open Battles fought to the full this slaughter of Emperours which you term Interludes were the immediate success after the death of Nero. You Fiends of Hell whose Voices are Lightning and Thunder whose breathing is nothing but Sword Fire Rages and Rebellions the encountring of Armies the butchery of millions of men the Massacre of Princes you account Interludes These are your pleasures these your recreations I hope all Christian-Commonwealths will bear an eye over your inclination and keep out both your persons and perswasions from turning their State into an open Stage for the acting of these Interludes You continue your base boldness in affiring that the Senate procured the death of Domitian that they requested the Souldiers to kill Heliogabalus that they invited Constantine to come and do justice upon Maxentius this broken kind of disguising is familiar unto you to make such violences as have often prevailed against excellent Princes to seem to be the act of the whole State And whereas you bring the succession of Alexander Severus for a good success of the murther of Heliogabalus being the rarest Prince you say that ever the Romans had you might have alleadged any Author in proof thereof better than Herodian who writeth of him in this manner Alexander did beaâ— the name and Ensigns of the Empire but the administration of Affairs and government of the State did rest upon women And further he writeth that by his slackness and cowardise the Roman Army was defeated by the Persians and finally that for his want of courage he was slain by his own Souldiers By this we may see that you go blindfold being so far from caring that many times you scarce know what you write Your markable Example as you term it of the change of the Empire from the West to the East from Constantine the sixth to Charles King of France doth mark out nothing more unto us than your soundred judgment The question is not what one forrain Prince may do against another but what Subjects may do against their Soveraign This is the point of controversie here you must close and not traverse about in discourses impertinent The change of the Kingdom of France from Childeric to Pepin your own Author Girard affirmeth to be both an ambitious and fraudulent usurpation wherein Pepin used the reverence of Religion as a Mantle to cover his Impiety and Rebellion The matters which he objected against Childerick were two First his insufficiency the ordinary pretence of most Rebellions but Girard saith that the ancient custom of the French was to love and honour their Kings whether sufficient or unable worthy or weak and that the name of King was esteemed sacred by whomsoever it was born Secondly he objected that his Subjects were conditionally sworn unto him and this also Girard writeth to be a forced and cautelous interpretation violently streining the words of their Oath to his advantage and indeed if the Oath of the people had been conditional what needed they to procure a Dispensation for the same This was the first act saith he whereby the Popes took occasion to set in their foot of Authority for transporting of Kingdoms from one Race to another which growing to strength hath filled all Christian Countries with confusion and tumult Likewise the change of that Kingdom from the Line of Pepin to the Line of Capet was a meer violence and intrusion and so it was acknowledged by Endes Earl of Paris the first of that Family who did usurp and for that cause he was constrained after two years reign to quit the Crown and to give place unto Charles the lawful Heir And when Robert brother unto Endes did enter into armâ— to recover that which his Brother once held he was beaten down and slain by the faithful Subjects of King Charles Hugh the son of Robert nourished this ambition but Hugh Capet his son with better both opportunity and success but no better right did accomplish the Enterprise For Girard calleth him an Usurper and Charles Duke of Lâ—â—rain the true Heir to the Crown Betweeâ— these two as in all usurpations it is usual War was raised but by the unsearchable Judgment of God the Duke of Orleans was cast to the ground And there is little doubt but if he had prevailed Orleans had beeâ— at this day a Member of the Crown of France The like answer may be given to your Example of Suintilla and this beside that the Kingdom of the Goths in Spain was not theâ— setled in succession and chiefly during the Reign of Victeric Gundemir Sisebuth Suintilla Sicenand Cinthilla and Tulca The History of Alphonso another of your Examples standeth thus Alphonso had a son call'd Ferdinand who died during the life of his father and left two young sons behind him After the death of Ferdinand his younger Brother Sancho practised with D. Lope Diaz de
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
secret Counsels unknown to the Angels and to justifie upon this event the Parricide of any Prince For my part I know not whether you shew your self more presumptuous in entering into this observation or in pursuing it more idle and impure I will pass over your protestation of Respect and Obedience due unto Princes Protest what you please we will take you for no other than a vile kind of vermine which if it be permitted to creep into the bowels of any State will gnaw the Heart-strings thereof in sunder This you manifest by the coarse comparison which presently you annex that as a natural Body hath authority to cure the Head if it be out of tune and reason to cut it off oftentimes if it were able to take another so a body Politick hath power to cure or cut off the Head if it be unsound But what either Will or Power hath any part of the Body in it self What either Sense for the one or Motion for the other which proceedeth not altogether from the Head Where is the Reason seated which you attribute to the Body both in judging and curing the infirmities of the Head Certain it is that in your cutting-cure you deal like a foolish Physician who finding a Body half taken and benumb'd with a Palsie cutteth off that part to cure the other and so make sure to destroy both You suppose belike that to enter into greater perils is the onely remedy of present Dangers I omit to press many points of this Comparison against you because Comparisons do serve rather to illustrate than enforce and I know not what assertion you might not easily make good if such senceless prating might go for proof I come now to your particular Examples whereof the first is of King Saul whom you affirm to be deprived and put to death for his disobedience Saul deprived and put to death I never heard that any of his Subjects did ever lift up one thought against him Dreamer you will say he was slain by the Philistines Good but who deprived him It was God you say who did deprive him You must pardon us if upon the suddain we do not conceive the mystery of your meaning Your words of deprivation and putting to death do rather import a judicial proceeding against him than that God delivered him to be vanquished by his Enemies in the Field But what is this to dispossessing by Subjects Yes you say because whatsoever God hath put in ure in his Commonwealth may be practised by others Why but then also good Princes may be deposed by their Subjects because God delivered Iosiah to be slain by the Egyptians You Firebrands of Strife you Trumpets of Sedition you Red Horses whose sitters have taken peace from the Earth how impudently do you abuse the Scriptures how do you defile them with your filthy Fingers It is most certain that David knew both because Samuel told him and because he had the Spirit of Prophesie that God had rejected Saul and designed him to be King in his place yet his Doctrine was always not to touch the Lords Anointed whereto his Actions were also answerable For when Saul did most violently persecute him he defended himself no otherwise than by Flight During this pursuit Saul fell twice into his power once he did not onely spare but protect him and rebuke the Pretorian Soldiers for their negligent watch The other time his Heart did smite him for that he had cut away the lap of his garment Lastly he caused the Messenger to be slain who upon request and for pity had furthered as he said the death of that sacred King We have a Precept of Obedience which is the mould wherein we ought to fashion our actions God onely is superiour to Princes who useth many instruments in the execution of his justice but his authority he hath committed unto none Your second Example is of King Amon who was slain as you write by his own people because he walked not in the ways of the Lord. This is somewhat indeed if it be true let us turn to the Text Amon was twenty two years old when be began to reign c. and he did evil in the sight of the Lord c. and his servants conspired against him and slew him in his house and the people smote all those who conspired against King Amon and made Josiah his son King in his stead But this is very different from that which you report Amon was slain by his Servants and not by the people who were so far from working that they severely revenged his death And although Amon was evil yet the Scripture layeth not his evil for the motive whereupon his Servants slew him The Devil himself in alleadging the Scripture used more honesty and sincerity if I may so term it than you For he cited the very words wresting them onely to a crooked sence but you change the words of the Scripture you counterfeit God's coyn you corrupt the Records which he hath left us I will now shake off all respect of civility towards you and tell you in flat and open terms that as one part of your Assertion is true that good Kings succeeded Saul and Amon so the other part that either they were or in right could have been deprived and put to death by their Subjects it is a sacrilegious a loggerheaded lye Of your Example of Romulus I have spoken before I have declared also how the Romans presently after the expelling of their Kings and for that cause were almost overwhelmed with the weight of War being beaten home to the very Gates of their City And had not Chocles by a miracle of Manhood sustained the shock of the Enemies whilst a Bridg was broken behind him the Town had been entred and their State ruined And whereas you attribute the inlargement of the Empire which hapned many Ages after to this expelling of their Kings you might as well have said that the rebellion against King Iohn was the cause of the Victories which we have since had in France I have before declared that the state of the Romans under their Consuls was popular rather in shew than in deed This shew began also to end when by the Law Valeria L. Sylla was established Dictator for four and twenty years After this the Empire did mightily increase until the reign of Trajane at which time all Authors agree that it was most large and yet far short of your wandring Survey not half Fifteen thousand miles in compass In your Example of Caesar I never saw more untruths crowded together in fewer words you say he broke all Laws both Humane and Divine that is one his greatest Enemies did give of him a most honourable testimony You say he took all Government into his hands alone that is two the people by the Law Servia elected him perpetual Dictator You make his death to be an act of the State that is three for they who slew him