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
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
hath dependency upon the People I have sufficiently encountred before And if your Consequence were true That whosoever is Judge of a thing is Judge also without controllment of the Cause if this were as agreeable to all Laws as you seem to believe then were all Judgments arbitrary then could no Appeal be interposed for giving Sentence without just Cause then were it false which Panormitan writeth that a false Cause expressed in a Sentence maketh it void What shall I say What do you think Do you think that these fat Drops of a greasie Brain can bring the Tenure of a Crown to the Will of the People What are you who endeavour thus boldly to abuse both our Judgment and Conscience Are you Religious Are you of Civil either Nature or Education who under the name of Civilian do open the way to all manner of Deceits Perjuries Tumults and Treasons What are you For you shew your self more prophane than Infidels more barbarous than Canibals Tartarians Moors and Mammelucks who though they please themselves in nothing more than Hatred and Contempt yet do they both love and honour their Kings I see what you are the very true Follower of the Anabaptists in Germany who openly professed That they must ruinate the State of Kings And who can assure us for your corrupt Dealings make all Suspicions credible that you do not also follow them both in Desire and Hope to embrace the Monarchy of the whole World The difference between you is this They pretended Revelation for then Warrant you work by deceitful shew of Reason by falsly either alledging or wresting or corrupting both Humane and Divine Authority In what miserable condition should Princes live if their State depended upon the Pleasure of the People in whom Company taketh away Shame and every Man may lay the Fault on his Fellow How could they command Who would obey What could they safely either do or omit Who knows a People that knoweth not that sudden Opinion maketh them hope which if it be not presently answered they fall into Hate chusing and refusing erecting and overthrowing as every Wind of Passion doth puff What steddiness in their Will or Desire which having so many Circles of Imagination can never be enclosed in one Point And whereas you write That God always approveth the Will and Judgment of the People as being properly the Judge of the whole Business and that every particular Man must simply submit himself thereunto without further inquisition although at divers times they determine Contraries as they did between the Houses of Lancaster and York because we must presume they were led by different Respects You seem not obscurely to erect thereby another privileged Power upon Earth which cannot err which doth not deceive But it may be some honest-minded Man will say That howsoever you write your meaning was otherwise You write also afterward That in two Cases every Private Man is bound to resist the Judgment of the whole People to the uttermost extent of his Ability Well then let us take you for a Man whose Sayings disagree both from your Meaning and between themselves let us consider what are your two Exceptions The first is when the Matter is carried not by way of orderly Judgment but by particular Faction of Private Men who will make offer to determine the Cause without Authority of the Realm committed unto them But this Exception is so large that it devoureth the whole Rule for in Actions of this quality the Original is always by Faction the Accomplishment by Force or at least by Fear howsoever they are sometimes countenanced with Authority of the State So Sylla having brought his Legions within the Walls of Rome obtained the Law Valeria to be published whereby he was created Dictator for twenty four Years by means of which Force Cicero affirmeth that it was no Law Likewise Lawrence Medices having an Army within Florence caused or rather constrained the Citizens to elect him Duke When Henry the Fourth was chosen King he held Forty thousand Men in Arms. And this is most evident by your own Example of four contrary Acts of Parliament which at divers times were made during the Contention between the Families of Lancaster and York not upon different Reasons as with little reason you affirm but upon different Success of either Side In Matters of this moment the orderly Course of Proceeding is onely by Parliament The Parliament must be summoned by the King 's Writ and no Act thereof hath Life but by express Consent of the King If this Form had always been observed neither our Kings should have been deposed nor the next Successors excluded nor the Title of the Crown entangled to the inestimable both weakning and waste of all the Realm Your second Exception is When such a Man is preferred to the Crown by whom God is manifestly offended and the Realm prejudiced or endangered In which Case you say every Man with a free and uncontrolled Conscience may resist what he can It was even here I looked for you Your broyling Spirits do nothing else but fling Firebrands and heap on Wood to set Kingdoms in Combustion What Rebellion what Revolt hath ever been made but under some of these Pretences What Princes Actions either by malicious or ignorant Interpretation may not easily be drawn to one of these Heads You are a Nursery of War in the Commonwealth a Seminary of Schism and Division in the Church In sum All your Actions all your Thoughts are barbarous and bloody You write much of Right and Justice but you measure the Right and Justice of a Cause by the Advantage of your own Affairs You speak as having a tender sense of the Glory of God but you stretch out your Throat with high Words of Contradiction against him You make shew of Care to preserve the State but you are like the Ivy which seemeth outwardly both to embrace and adorn the Wall whereinto inwardly it doth both eat and undermine For what Means either more ready or forcible to overthrow a State than Faction and intestine Quarrels And what other Milk do you yield What are your Opinions what your Exhortations but either to set or to hold up Sedition and Bloodshed St. Paul teacheth us not to resist higher Powers although both cruel and prophane you teach us to resist them what we can The Apostle is followed of all the Ancient Fathers of the Church you are followed of those onely who follow the Anabaptists For my part I had rather err with the Apostle in this Opposition than hold Truth with you But I will speak more moderately in a Subject of such a nature I will not say then That I had rather err but That I shall less fear to err in not resisting with the Apostle than in resisting with you New Counsels are always more plausible than safe After you have plaid the Suffenus with your self in setting the Garland upon your own Head and making