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
right of Succession So have Pyrates against Merchants so have Murtherers and Thieves against true meaning Travellers And this disloyalty of the people hath moved divers Kings to cause their Sons to be crowned during their own lives because the unsetled state of succeeding Kings doth give opportunity to boldest attempts and not as you dream because admission is of more importance than succession I will examine your Examples in the Chapters following In the mean time where you write that King Henry and King Edward both called the Fourth had no better way to appease their minds at the time of their death but by founding their Title upon consent of the people the Authors which you cite do plainly charge you with unexcusable untruth King Edward never made question of his right King Henry did as some other Authors report but applied no such deceitful comfort this false skin would not then serve to cover his wound An Answer to the Seventh Chapter which beareth title How the next in Succession by propinquity of Blood have oftentimes been put back by the Commonwealth and others further off admitted in their places even in those Kingdoms where Succession prevaileth with many Examples of the Kingdom of Israel and Spain HEre you present your self very pensive to your audience as though you had so over-strained your wits with store of Examples of the next in Succession not admitted to the State that you had cracked the credit of them for ever But you are worthy of blame either for endangering or troubling your self in matters of so small advantage I have shewed before that Examples suffice not to make any proof and yet herein doth consist the greatest shew of your strength It is dangerous for men to be governed by Examples though good except they can assure themselves of the same concurrence of reasons not onely in general but in particularities of the same direction also and carriage in Counsel and lastly of the same favourable fortune but in actions which are evil the imitation is commonly worse than the example Your puffie discourse then is a heap of words without any weight you make mountains not for Mole-hills but of Moats long harvest of a small deal not of Corn but of Cockle and as one said at the shearing of Hogs great cry for a little and that not very fine Wool Yea but of necessity something you must say yea but this something is no more than nothing You suppose that either your opinion will be accepted more for authority of your Person than weight of your Proofs or else that any words will slide easily into the minds of those who are lulled in the humour of the same inclination because partiality will not suffer men to discern truth being easily beguiled in things they desire Besides whatsoever countenance you carry that all your Examples are free from exception yet if you had cast out those which are impertinent or unjust or else untrue you could not have been overcharged with the rest Your first example that none of the Children of Saul did succeed him in the Crown is altogether impertinent because by particular and express appointment of God the Kingdom was broken from his posterity We acknowledge that God is the onely superiour Judge of Supream Kings having absolute both Right and Power to dispose and transpose their Estates as he please Neither must we examine his actions by any course of Law because his Will is above all Law He hath enjoyned the people to be obedient to their Kings he hath not made them equal in authority to himself And whereas out of this example you deduce that the fault of the father may prejudicate the sons right although he had no part in the fault to speak moderately of you your judgement is either deceitful or weak God in his high Justice doth punish indeed the sins of Parents upon their Posterity but for the ordinary course of Humane Justice he hath given a Law that the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father The equity whereof is regularly followed both by the Civil and Canon Law and by the Interpreters of them both Your second example is of King Solomon who succeeded in the State of David his Father notwithstanding he was his youngest Son But this example in many respects falleth not within the compass of your case First because he was not appointed Successour by the people and we speak what the people may do to direct Succession Secondly for that the Kingdom was not then stablished in Succession Lastly for that the action was led by two Prophets David and Nathan according to the express choise and direction of God whereby it is no rule for ordinary right Here many points do challenge you of indiscretion â—â— the least You write that David made a promise to Bathsheba in his youth That Solomon should succeed in his estate but if you had considered at what years Solomon began to Reign you should have found that David could not make any such promise but he must be a youth about threescore years of age You write also that David adored his Son Solomon from his bed but the words wherewith David worshipped were these Blessed be the Lord God of Israel who hath made one to sit on my Throne this day even in my sight whereby it is evident that David adored God and not his Son This I note rather for observation of the loosness of your Judgment than for any thing it maketh to the purpose You are so accustomed to untruths that you fall into them without either advantage or end The like answer may be given to your example of Rehoboam because God declared his sentence therein by two Prophets Ahijah Shemaiah But for that the ten Tribes revolted from Rehoboam upon discontentment at his rough answer and with dispite against David and his House and not in obedience to Gods Decree we cannot excuse them from offence for which it turned to their destruction For hereupon first they were separated both from the place and manner of the true Worship of God then there arose unappeasable War between them and the Tribe of Iudah then insolencies following disorders they were never long time free from Conspiracies Divisions and Tumults by which means being drained both of Wealth and Inhabitants and reduced to a naked weakness they were lastly carried captive into divers far Countries and strangers were sent to inhabit their Cities I must here also observe a few of your interpretations wherein your boldness is not limited with any bounds It is to be noted you say that before Rehoboam went to Shechem to be admitted by the people he was not accounted true King I desire therefore that you would satisfie us in these places following Before Rehoboam went to Shechem the Scripture saith that Solomon died was buried and Rehoboam his Son reigned in his stead Again after the defection of
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
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
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
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
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
THE Right of Succession ASSERTED Against the False Reasonings AND Seditious Insinuations OF R. DOLMAN alias Parsons And others By the Learned Sir JOHN HAYWARD Kt. Doctor of Laws Dedicated to the King AND Now reprinted for the Satisfaction OF THE ZEALOUS PROMOTERS OF The Bill of Exclusion LONDON Printed for Mat. Gillyflower Will. Hensman and Tho. Fox Booksellers in Westminster-hall 1683. TO THE KING'S Most Excellent Majesty Most dread Soveraign TO offer Excuse for that which I needed not to have done were secretly to confess that having the Judgement to discern a fault I wanted the Will not to commit it Again to seek out some colours to make it more plausible were to bring in question the sufficiency thereof Therefore without further insinuation either for Pardon or for Acceptance I here present unto your Majesty this Defence both of the present Authority of Princes and of Succession according to Proximity of Bloud wherein is maintained that the People have no lawful Power to remove the one or repel the other In which two Points I have heretofore also declared my opinion by publishing the tragical Events which ensued the deposition of King Richard and Usurpation of King Henry the Fourth Both these labours were undertaken with particular respect to your Majesties just Title of Succession in this Realm and I make no doubt but all true-hearted Englishmen will always be both ready and forward to defend the same with expence of the dearest drops of their bloud The Lord vouchsafe to second your honourable Entrance to the Possession of this Crown with a long and prosperous continuance over us Your Majesties most humble and faithful Subject JO. HAYWARD Qui tibi Nestoreum concessit pectus ora Nestoreos etiam concedat Jupiter annos TO R. Dolman YOu will think it strange Master Dolman that having lain these many years in quiet harbour from the tempest of mens Tongues you should now feel a Storm to break upon you peradventure you were perswaded as every one suffereth himself to be beguiled with desire that this silence did grow either upon acceptance of your opinion or from insufficiency to oppose against it I assure you neither but partly from contempt and partly from fear The contempt proceeded from the manner of your writing wherein you regard not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not how either truly or penitently but how largely you do write endeavouring nothing else but either to abuse weak judgements or to feed the humours of such discontented persons as want or disgrace hath kept lower than they had set their swelling thoughts The fear was occasioned by the nimble Ear which lately was born to the touch of this String For which cause our English Fugitives did stand in some advantage in that they had free scope to publish whatsoever was agreeable to their pleasure knowing right well that their Books could not be suppressed and might not be answered It may be you will question wherefore I have not answered your Second Part It is ready for you but I have not now thought fit to divulge the same partly because it hath been dealt in by some oâ—hâ—rs but principally because I know not how convenient it may seem to discuss such particulars as with general both liking and applause are now determined I forbâ—ar to express your true name I have reserved thâ—â— to my Answer to some cast Pamphlet which I eâ—â—ect you will cast forth against me And I make â—â—ttle doubt but to drive you in the end to such desperate extremity as with Achitophel to sacrifice your self to your own shame because your mischievous Counsel hath not been embraced AN ANSWER TO THE FIRST CHAPter whereof the Title is this That Succession to Government by nearness of blood is not by law of Nature or divine but only by humane and positive Laws of every particular common-wealth and consequently that it may upon just causeâ— be altered by the same HERE you begin that other conditions are requisite for coming to Government by succession besides propinquity or priority of blood which conditions must be limited by some higher authority than that of the King and yet are they prescribed by no Law of Nature or Divine For otherwise one that wanteth his wits or sences or is a Turk in Religion might succeed in Government which you affirm to be against all Reason Law Religion Wisdom conscience and against the first end of Institution of common wealths And that Byllay who maintaineth the contrary doth it in favor and flattery of some particular Prince What conditions are requisit in succession besides priority of blood and by what authority they are to be limited I will then examin when you shall propound but for your reason of this assertion you must have other men them Billay out of credit for reason law conscience and wisdom before you carry it for clear good As for entire contrariety in Religion or difference in some particular points thereof whether it be a sufficient cause of exclusion or no I will refer my self to that place where you do strain your strength about it In disabilities to govern Baldus doth distinguish whether it be natural or accidental affirming that in the first case it sufficeth to exclude because he that is incapable of government from his birth had never any right of succession setled in him in the other it doth not suffice because he that is once inveited in right of succession cannot be deprived thereof without his fault Many do follow this distinction Io. Igneus doth limit it to such dignities as are not absolute But Iason Angelus and divers others do indistinctly hold that the eldest Son of a King or other Governor although he be born either furious or a fool or otherwise defective cannot therefore be excluded from his succession These affirm that any end of institution of Common-wealths is if not fully yet better satisfied by appointing a protector of the state as upon divers occasions it hath been usual then by acknowledging another Prince as well for other respects as for that by continuance of succession in one discent a fair and ordinary occasion is removed both of mutiny and invasion For enemies will not readily attempt and subjects do most willingly obey that prince whose ancestors have worn out those humors both of hatred and contempt which do commonly accompany new raised estates I will not confirm this last opinion by the example of Neptune the son of Saturn who although he was lame on both his legs yet had the Government of the sea allotted to him but I will confirm it by the practise of Athens and Lacedaemon the two eyes of Graecia as Leptines and Iustine do aptly term them Herodoâ—us reporteth that when Alexandrides King of Sparta left 2. sons Cleomenes the eldest distracted in wits and Dorieus the youngest both of ability and inclination to all actions of honor the Lacedaemonians acknowledged Cleomenes for their King
will you say is nature immutable It is in abstracto but it is not in subjecto Or thus In it self it is not changed in us by reason of our imperfections it is Or else more plainly it is not changed but it is transgressed But nature you say is alike to all Not so good sir because all are not apt alike to receive her even as the sun beams do not reflect alike upon a clean and clear glass and upon a glass that is either filthy or course And in many not only men but nations evil custom hath driven nature out of place and setteth up it self in stead of nature Your third conclusion that no particular form of Government is natural doth not find so easie acceptance Your only proof is that if it were otherwise there should be one form of Government in all Nations because God and nature is one to all But this reason I have encountred before and yet you take pains to puff it up with many wast words how the Romans changed Government how in Italy there is a Pope a King and many Dukes how Millaine Burgundie Loraine Bavier Gascoine and Britain the less were changed from Kingdoms to Dukedoms how Germany was once under one King and is now divided among Dukes Earles and other supreme Princes How Castile Aragone Portugall Barcelona and other countries in Spain were first Earldoms then Dukedoms then several Kingdoms and now are united into one how Boeme and Polonia were once Dukedoms and now are Kingdoms how France was first one Kingdom then divided into four and lastly reduced into one How England was first a Monarchy under the Britains then a Province under the Romans after that divided into seven Kingdoms and lastly reduced into one how the People of Israel were first under Patriarcks Abraham Isaac and Iacob then under Captains then under Judges then under high Priests then under Kings and then under Captains and high Priests again I will not follow you in every by way whereinto your errors do lead for who would have adventured to affirm that the Children of Israel were under Abraham and Isaac and that the Britains at the first were under one King whereas Caesar reporteth that he found four Kings in that Country which is now called Kent but I will only insist upon the principal point in regard whereof all this bundel of words is like a blown bladder full of wind but of no weight For first you do but trifle upon tearms in putting a difference between Kings Dukes and Earls which hold their state with Soveraign power We speak not of the names but of the Government of Princes Supreme Rulers may differ in name they may change name also either by long use or upon occasion and yet in Government neither differ nor change Secondly it is a more vain jeast to put a difference in this regard between a great territory and a small If a Kingdom be enlarged or streightned in limits the Government is not thereby changed if many Kingdoms be united into one if one be divided into many the nature of Government is no more altered then is the tenure of land either when partition is made or when many parts accrewe into one The knot of doubt is whether it be not natural that one state be it great or small should rather be commanded by one person howsoever intitled then by many And if we descend into true discourse we shall find that the very sinews of Government do consist in commanding and in obeying But obedience cannot be performed where the commandments are either repugnant or uncertain neither can these inconveniencies be any ways avoided but by union of the Authority which doth command This union is of two sorts first when one commandeth secondly when many do knit in one power and will The first union is natural the second is by means of amity which is the only band of this collective body and the more they are who joyn in Government the less natural is their union and the more subject to dissipation For as Taciâ—us saith equality and amity are scarce compatible Natural reason teacheth us that all multitude beginneth from one and the ancient Philosophers have held that from unity all things do proceed and are again resolved into the same Of which opinion Laertius reporteth that Museus of Athens was Author who lived long before Homer but afterwards it was renewed by Pythagoras as Plutarch Alexander and Laertius do write who added thereunto that Unity is the original of good and duality of evil And of this opinion Saint Hierome was alâ—o whose sentence is repeated in the canonical decrees but under the title name of Saint Ambrose Hereupon Homer doth oftentimes call good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applyeth the terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to affliction trouble Hereupon Galen also writeth that the best in every kind is one Plato produceth all things from one measureth all things by one and reduceth all things into one The whole world is nothing but a great state a state is no other then a great family and a family no other then a great body As one GOD ruleth the World one master the family as all the members of one body receive both sence and motion from one head which is the seat and tower both of the understanding and of the will so it seemeth no less natural that one state should be governed by one commander The first of these arguments was used by Soliman Lord of the Turks Who having strangled Sultane Mustapha his son because at his return out of Persia he was received by the soldiers with great demonstrations of joy he caused the dead body to be cast forth before the armie and appointed one to cry There is but one God in Heaven and one Sultane upon Earth The second was used by Agesilaus to one that moved the Spartans for a popular government go first said he and stablish a popular Government within your own doors To the third Tacitus did allude when he said The body of one Empire seemeth best to be governed by the soul of one man In the Heavens there is but one Sun which Serinus also applyeth unto Government in affirming that if we set up two Suns we are like to set all in combustion Many sociable creatures have for one company one principal either Governour or guide which all Authors take for a natural Demonstration of the Government of one And if you require herein the testimony of men you shall not find almost any that writeth upon this subject but he doth if not allege yet allow that of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Lord one King Plutarch declareth both his own Judgment concerning this point and also the consent of others in affirming that all men did acknowledge that the Government of a King is the most excellent benefit that God hath given unto Men. Callimachus saith that Kings proceed from God Homer
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
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
the ten Tribes it is said that in the Cities of Iudah Rehoboam did Reign still implying thereby that in the other Cities he reigned before Again they are said to have rebelled against the house of David And lastly Rehoboam raised all the strength of Iudah and Benjamin to bring the Kingdom again unto him Further you write that ten Tribes refused to admit Rehoboam but the Scripture saith that they rebelled What did God only allow hereof after it was done did he only permit the people to do it The Scripture testifieth that it was his Decree that it was his Deed and that he declared his Will by Ahijah the Prophet during the life of Solomon and for his sins But these special Warrants do not constitute a Law they serve onely to make good the particular actions for which they are directed and not to justifie another the like Lastly St. Paul saith that all things hapned to the Jews in figure upon which place divers Expositors have noted that the State of the Jews was a figure of the Church of Christ but that it was an example and patern of all other States that should ensue it shall be ranged among your cast conceits I refer me now to the judgment of any man who taketh not pleasure to beguile himself whether you do not by art and trumpery manifestly abuse us partly by incapacity and partly by deceit either corrupting or confounding whatsoever you take in hand Your humour both discontented and unquiet hath armed your mind with bloudy desires which have edged you on to put fewel to those flames which you should endeavour to quench though it were with your bloud I will not stand upon the particular Examples of Spain as well for that the matter is both tedious and to little purpose as also for that we have small conformity with the Customs of that Nation Onely thus much in general We acknowledge that in ancient times the Kingdom of Spain was Elective and therefore your Examples drawn from thence are nothing pertinent The Examples of latter times are both few and unjust carried onely by Faction and by Force as Garabay testifieth of your Example of Aurelio and as by the Example of D. Sancho el Bravo I have declared before But you account Faction to be the Commonwealth and Violence Justice when it may make to the furtherance of your affairs The History of D. Berenguela I will briefly report rather for the respect which guided the Castilians than that I allow it for Right which they did Henry had two Sisters Donna Blanch the eldest married to Lewes the eighth King of France and Berenguela the youngest married to Alphonso King of Leon. Henry dying without Issue the Castilians feared if they should submit themselves unto Blanch that their State being less than the State of France would be made a Member thereof and governed as a Province and not as a Kingdom And therefore they did rather chuse to profess Allegiance to the Lady Berenguela by which means the Kingdom of Leon was afterwards annexed unto Castile to the great increase both of dignity and assurance to them both I have followed herein your own Authors not being ignorant that others of better name do write that Berenguela was the eldest Sister as I shall have occasion hereafter to declare but for the present let it be as you please and let us weigh our own wisdoms not onely in straining but in forging Titles to incur those mischiefs which the Castilians rejected a lawful Title to avoid And this was also one of the Motives of the Revolt of Portugal which is your last Example although it had also as Garabay writeth a concurrence of Right For Ferdinand King of Portugal by his Procurators the Bishop of Ebora and others did both contract and solemnize espousals with Elianor Daughter of Peter King of Aragon But being entred into War with Henry King of Castile and finding himself at some disadvantage he forsook the King of Aragons Daughter and contracted himself to Elianor Daughter to the King of Castile upon very beneficial Conditions for his State Afterward falling into fancy with one of his Subjects named Elianor Telles de Meneses Wife to a Nobleman called Lorenzo Vasques de Aounna he took her as his Wife and enforced her Husband to avoid the Realm and had by her one onely Daughter named Beatrix who was joyned in marriage to Iohn King of Castile After the death of the King of Portugal her Father the King of Castile in the right of his Wife laid claim to that Realm and was accordingly acknowledged by the chief of the Nobility and Prelates and in particular by D. Iohn Master of Avis her Fathers base Brother who was then the most forward man in her favour But afterwards falling into quarrel and having slain the Count de Oren he stirred the people against the Queen and compelled her to quit the City And after divers Outrages and Murthers committed upon the Bishop of Lisbon an Abbess and many others he was first made Governour of Portugal and then proceeding further in an Assembly of his Party gathered at Coimbra he was made King Garabay writeth that the chiefest objection against Beatrix was because her Mother was not King Ferdinand 's lawful Wife And I believe you also that they had a reflex not to lose the dignity of their Kingdom as now they have done and be made subject to the cruel both Avarice and Ambition of a more potent State An Answer to the eighth Chapter which is entituled Of divers other examples out of the States of France and England for proof that the next in Blood are sometimes put back from Succession and how God hath approved the same with good Success YOur Examples of France to which Nation we are more near both in situation and Laws I will run over with a swift course Of the Change which twice hath hapned in the whole Race of the Kings of France I have spoken before You seem also either to threaten or presage the third Change from the King who now reigneth and other Princes of the House of Bourbon It was your desire you applyed your endeavour with all the power and perswasions you could make You knit divers of the Nobility in a treacherous League against him you incensed the People you drew in Forreign Forces to their assistance by which means the Realm fell daily into change of distresse the men of Arms making all things lawful to their Lust. The Good did fear the Evil expect no place was free either from the rage or suspition of Tumult few to be trusted none assured all things in commixtion the Wisest too weak the Strongest too simple to avoid the Storm which brake upon them the People Joyning to their miserable Condition many Complaints That they had been abused by you in whose Directions they found nothing but Obstinacie and Rashness two dangerous Humours to lead a great
your imaginary Audience to applaud your Opinion as worshipfully wise you proceed to declare what ought chiefly to be regarded in furthering or hindering any Prince towards the Crown Three Points you say are to be required in every Prince Religion Chivalry and Justice And putting aside the two last as both handled by others and of least importance you assume onely to treat of Religion wherein either Errour or Want doth bring inestimable Damage to any State You draw a long Discourse That the highest End of every Commonwealth is the Service and Worship of God and consequently That the Care of Religion is the principal Charge which pertaineth to a King And therefore you conclude That whatsoever Prince doth not assist his Subjects to attain this End omitteth the chief part of his Charge and committeth High Treason against his Lord and is not fit to hold that Dignity though he perform the other two Parts never so well And that no Cause can so justly clear the Conscience whether of the People or of particular Men in resisting the Entrance of any Prince as if they judge him faulty in Religion This is neither nothing nor all which you say In Elective States the People ought not to admit any Man for King who is either cold or corrupt in Religion but if they have invested such a one with Sovereign Authority they have no Power at pleasure to remove him In Successive Kingdoms wherein the People have no Right of Election it is not lawful for Private Men upon this cause to offer to impeach eithâ—r the Entrance or Continuance of that King which the Laws of the State do present unto them not onely because it is forbidden of God for that is the least part of your regard but because disorderly Disturbance of a setled Form in Government traineth after it more both Impieties and Dangers than hath ever ensued the Imperfections of a King I will come more close to the Point in controversie and dispel those foggy Reasons which stand between your Eye and the Truth There are two Principal Parts of the Law of God the one Moral or Natural which containeth three Points Sobriety in our selves Justice towards others and generally also Reverence and Piety towards God The other is Supernatural which containeth the true Faith of the Mysteries of our Salvation and the special kind of Worship that God doth require The first God hath delivered by the Ministry of Nature to all Men the second he doth partly reveal and partly inspire to whom he pleases and therefore although most Nations have in some sort observed the one yet have they not onely erred but failed in the other During the time of the Law this peculiar Worship of God was appropriate onely to the People of Israel in a corner Kingdom of the World The flourishing Empires of the Assyrians Medes Persians Aegyptians Graecians Syrians and Romans either knew it not or held it in contempt The Israelitâ—s were almost always in subjection under these both Heathen and Tyrannical Governments and yet God by his Prophets enjoyned them Obedience affirming That the Hearts of Kings were in his Hands and that they were the Officers of his Justice the Executioners of his Decrees In the time of Grace the true Mysteries both of Worship and Belief were imparted also to other Nations but the ordinary Means to propagate the same was neither by Policy nor by Power When St. Peter offered provident Counsel as he thought unto Christ advising him to have care of himself and not to go to Hierusalem where the Iews sought to put him to death Christ did sharply reprove him for it When he did draw his Sword and therewith also drew Blood in defence of Christ he heard this Sentence They that take the sword shall perish with the sword Christ armed his Apostles onely with Fiery Tongues by force whereof they maintained the Field against all the Stratagems and Strength in the World And when Princes did not onely reject but Persecute their Doctrine they taught their Subjects obedience unto them they did both encounter and overcome them not by resisting but by persisting and enduring This course seemeth strange to the discourse of Reason to plant Religion under the Obedience of Kings not only careless thereof but cruel against it but when we consider that the Jews did commonly forsake God in prosperity and seek him in distress that the Church of Christ was more pure more zealous more entire I might also say more populous when she travelled with the Storme in her Face then when the wind was either prosperous or calme that as S. Agustine saithâ—s Want or weakness of faith is usually Chastised with the Scourges of tribulations We may learn thereby no further to examin but to admire and embrace the unsearchable wisdom and will of God Seeing therefore that this is appointed the odinary means both to establish and encrease Religion may we adventure to exchange it with humane devices Is it the Servants duty either to contradict or dispute the Masters commandement is there any more ready way to prove an Heretick then in being a curious questionist with God is he bound to yield to any man a reason of his will It is more then presumption it is plain Rebellion to oppose our reason against his order against his decree It standeth also upon common Rules That which is contrary to the nature of a thing doth not help to strengthen but destroy it It is foolish to add external stay to that which is sufficient to support it self It is senceless to attempt that by force which no force is able to effect That which hath a proper Rule must not be directed by any other And this was both the Profession and practice of the antient Fathers of the Church as I have declared before whereto I will here add that which S. Ambrose saith Let every man bear it patiently if it be not extorted from the Emperor which he would be loath the Emperor should extort from him And lest they might be interpreted not to mean obedience as well to succession as to present Power they alledge that which the Captive Jews of Babylon did write to the tributary Jews which were at Ierusalem to pray for the life not only of Nebuchodonosor the King of Babylon but also of Baltasar his Son the next Successor to his Estate But in latter times Innocentius hath taught and is also seconded by Castrensis that love is a just cause to move armes for matters of Religion Under which pretence divers men have pursued their own private purposes and ends Guicciardine writeth that Firdinand who was called the catholick did cover all his covetous and ambitious desires with the honest and holy vail of religion the like doth Iovius report of Charles V. Emperour Paulus Emilius writeth thus of all every man professeth his war to be holy every man termeth his enemies impious sanctity and piety is