Princes upon pain of Excommunication to impose new Impositions upon their People without great necessitie and free Consent of the givers Nay why be all Princes at this day prohibited to alienate any thing of their own Crown without consent of their People if they be Lords of all and the People have interest in nothing Answer to the Allegations out of the Prophet SAMUEL Touching the words of Samuel they are not to allow or authorise Injustice or Wickedness in any King But to threaten the Jews with the disorders of Kings for that they rejected the moderate Government of their High Priests and had demanded as a matter of more Pomp and Glorie to be ruled by Kings as other Heathen Nations about them were which did suffer great extortions and tyrannies of their said Kings For the principal points recorded to all Princes throughout the whole course of Scripture are Diligere Judicium Justitiam apprehendere Disciplinam facere veritatem And for not observing them many Princes have been punished by God himself By what Law Princes are punished Now to know by what Law the Common-wealths do punish their Kings It is by all Law both Divine and Humane Divine for that God doth approve that form conditions and limitations which every Common-wealth doth chuse unto it self Humane for that all Law both natural national and positive doth teach us That Princes are subject to Law and Order And it is not so of a Common-wealth as it is of a private man because a private man's voice being but one doth not make the Prince wholly as the Common-wealth doth Besides having once given his voice to make his Prince he remaineth subject and inferior to the same But the whole Bodie superior who giving his authoritie up to the Prince doth not deprive her self of it but may use it when need shall require for his own defence for which he gave it Where one of the Contractants breaketh the other is no more bound And then that power which the Prince hath from the Common-wealth is in very truth but potestas vicaria or delegata given with such restrictions cautels conditions and oaths on both parts the Prince and the Common-wealth as if the same be not kept on either part the other is not bound to observe his promise neither And this is among the very rules of both the Civil and Canon Law Frustrà fidem sibi quis postulat servari ab eo cui fidem à se praestitam servare recusat And again Non abstringitur quis juramento ad implendum quod juravit si ab aliâ parte non impletur cujus respectu praebuit juramentum In things evil promised Oath bindeth not Moreover where the fulfilling of our Oath doth contain any notable hurt or inconvenience against Religion Pietie Justice Honestie or the Weal-publick or against the partie himself to whom it was made it is both lawful honest and convenient to leave the performance thereof As for example In that Herod commanded St. John Baptists head to be cut off which he did for his Oaths sake to the Daughter of Herodias no man will deny but that the thing had been far better left unperformed and the Oath better broken than fulfilled according to another rule of the Law In malis promissis fidem non expedit observari Two principal Cases when Oaths hold not towards a Prince So in these two Cases Subjects Oaths may be left unperformed towards the Prince First when the Prince observeth not at all his promise made to the Common-wealth at his admission And then when the performing of their oath should turn to the notable damage of the Weal-publick These Two Cases touched in the Deprivation of Childerick of France These Two Cases were touched in the Deposition of Childerick when the Bishop of Woitsburg in the Name of all the Nobilitie and Common-wealth of France made this Speech to Zacharie the Pope Truth it is that the French have sworn Fidelitie to Childerick as to their natural King but yet with Condition that he on his part should also perform the Points that are incident to his Office as to defend the Common-wealth protect the Church of Christ c. which if he doth the French are ready to continue their obedience and allegiance unto him But if he be apt for none of these things and nothing else may be expected whilest he is King but detriment to the State ignominie to the Nation danger to Christian Religion and destruction to the Weal-publick Then it is lawful for you no doubt most holy Father to deliver the French from this band of their Oath c. The difference between a King and a Tyrant When a King declineth once from his Dutie he becometh a Tyrant And as a good King's end and Office is to make happie his Common-wealth so the Butt of a Tyrant is to destroy the same A King ruleth according to equitie oath conscience justice and law prescribed unto him and a Tyrant is enemy to all these conditions Vt populo Magistratus ità Magistratui praesunt leges saith Cicero Theodosius and Valentinianus two worthie Emperors Digna vox est said they Majestate Regnantis legibus se alligatum fateri But the Tyrant Caligula is justly detested who said Memento mihi omnia in omnes licere And the Emperor Trajan certainly is to be immortally commended who delivering the Sword to a Praetor or Governor in Rome Take this Sword said he and if I do reign justly use it for me and if not then use it against me Which in effect and substance are the same words that our Christian Princes use at this day at their enterance when they promise to rule justly and according to the Laws of their Country and upon that Condition take the Oaths of their Subjects Obedience Protesting That if they perform not this that then their Subjects are free as before from all Allegeance Of the Coronation of Princes and manner of their Admission to their Authoritie and the Oaths which they do make in the same unto the Common-wealth for their good Government CAP. V. Since the People made the Prince it is likely he did it with Conditions for his own good FOrasmuch as not Nature but the Election and Consent of the People hath made the first Princes from the beginning of the world It appeareth most certain and conform to all reason That they were not admitted to that Power and Dignity without some Conditions and Promises also on their parts for using it well because it is not likely that any people would ever put their lives goods and liberties in the hands of another without some assurance of justice and equity And hereof came to pass that both the Romans and Greecians prescribed to their Kings those limits before mentioned More Religiously observed among Christians than other Nations And the more orderly the Prince cometh to his Crown the more express and
to Odo for recompence the State of Aquitaine with title of a Duke Ralph 1. in the place of Charles the simple This Charles through his simplicitie beeing allured to go to the Castle of Peronne in Picardie was made there prisoner and forced to resign his Kingdom unto Ralph King of Burgundie And his Queen Algina or Ogen daughter of King Edward the elder of England fled with her little son Lewis that shee had by him into England unto her Uncle K. Adelstan And Charles through miserie died soon after in the said Castle of Peronne Lewis d'Outremer son to Charles the Simple established But this Ralph dying also three years after the States of France called out of England Lewis therefore named d'Outremor and crowned him And hee was a good King and reigned 27 years Hugh Capet to the prejudice of Charles of Lorrayne Louys d'Outremer left two sons Lothaire who succeeded him and Charles whom hee made Duke of Lorrayne Lothaire had a son named Louys who was King after him but died without issue And so the crown was to have gon by succession to his Uncle Charles Notwithstanding the States of France for mislike they had of his person did put him by and chose * Hugo Capetus Earl of Paris who by approbation of the Common-wealth was crowned and his race endureth until this day Hugh Capet his title not by usurpation And all the French Chronicles do justifie this title of Hugo Capetus against Charles Nangis an ancient and diligent writer of the Abbey of S. Denis defendeth it in these words Wee may not grant in any case that Hugh Capet may bee esteemed an Invador or Usurper of the Crown of France seeing the Lords Prelates Princes and Governors of the Realm did call him to this dignitie and chose him for their King and Sovereign Lord Upon which words Belforest saith For in very truth wee cannot by any other means defend the title of Hugh Capet from usurpation and felonie then to justifie his coming to the Crown by the consent and will of the Common-wealth A speech used by the Ambassador sent from the States of France to Charles of Lorrayne after his exclusion Here is to bee noted somwhat out of the speech which the Ambassador sent by the States of France after their election of Hugh Capet to Charles of Lorrayne did use unto him as followeth Every man knoweth Lord Charles that the Succession of the Crown and Realm of France according to the ordinarie Laws and Rights of the same belongeth unto you and not unto Hugh Capet now our King but yet the very same Laws which do give unto you this right of Succession do judg you also unworthie of the same for that you have not endeavored hitherto to frame your life and manners according to the prescript of those Laws nor according to the use and custom of your Countrey of France but rather have allied your self with the Germane Nation our old enemies and have acquainted your self with their vile and base manners Wherefore seeing you have forsaken and abandoned the ancient virtue sweetness and amitie of the French wee have also abandoned and left you and have chosen Hugh Capet for our king and have put you back and this without any scruple or prejudice of our consciences at all esteeming it far better and more just to live under Hugh Capet the present possessor of the Crown with enjoying the antient use of our Laws Customs Privileges and Liberties than under you the inheritor by nearness of blood in oppression strange customs and crueltie For even as those which are to make a voiage in a ship upon a dangerous sea do not so much repent whether the Pilot which is to guide the stern bee owner of the ship or no but rather whether hee bee skilful valiant and like to bring them in safetie to their way's end or to drown them among the waves even so our principal care is that wee have a good Prince to lead and guide us happily in the way of Civil and politick life which is the end why Princes were appointed For that this man is fitter to bee our King And so Charles was excluded and the Frenchmen thought themselvs secure in conscience for doing the same which God also hath seemed to confirm with the succession and happie success of so many noble and most Christian Kings as have issued out of this Line of Hugo Capetus unto this day Examples of the Third Rank Henry 1. to the prejudice of his elder Brother Robert In this Third Line Robert Hugh Capet his son who succeeded him had two sons Robert and Henry whereof the younger was admitted and Robert put back partly becaus hee was but a simple man in respect of Henry and partly for that Henry was greatly favored and assisted in this pretence by Robert Duke of Normandie Lewis 6. like to bee dis-inherited for the hatred of his father K. Philip 1. When Philip 1. son to this Henry was deceased the people of France were so offended with his evil life and Government as that his son Louis le Gros was like to bee dis-inherited for his sake if som of his partie had not caused him to bee crowned in hast and out of order at Orleans for preventing the matter Charles 8. for his father Lewis xi So the State of France had once determined to put back Charles afterwards the Eight from his succession for the hatred they bare to his father Lewis the XI if the said father had not died while the other was very young Examples of England Divers changes of Races in England For England it hath had as great varietie and changes in the race of their Kings as any Realm in the world For first after the Britains it had the Romans of whose and their own blood they had Kings again of their own After this they had them of the Saxon and English blood and after them of the Danes and then of the Normans and after them again of the French and last of all it seemeth to have returned to the Britains again in K. Henry 7. for that his father came of that race Examples before the Conquest Egbert 1. before his nearer in blood To pass over the ancient ranks of the British Roman and Saxon races until Egbert King of the West-Saxons and almost of the rest of England besides who therefore is said to bee properly the first monarch of the Saxon blood and first commanded that Realm to bee called England as ever since hath been observed this man Egbert beeing for his prowess in jealousie to his King Britricus was by him banished into France where he lived a Captain under the famous King Pepin till that Britricus dying hee returned into England where though hee were not the next by propinquitie of blood yet as Polydor saieth omnium consensu Rex creatur and proved the most excellent King that ever before the Saxons had Adelstan
much more a bare Betrothing such as is between an Heir apparent and a Common-wealth St. Paul determineth plainly That if two Gentiles married together in their Gentilitie which none denieth to be true marriage for so much as concerneth the Civil Contract and afterward the one of them being made a Christian the other would not live with his partie or if he do yet not without blaspheming of God and tempting him to sin In this case he teacheth That it is sufficient to break and dissolve utterly this heathen marriage and that the Christian may marrie again and this only for the want of Religion in the other party Which being so in actual marriage already made consummate how much more may it serve to undo a bare betrothing which is the case of a Pretender only to a Crown as before hath been shewed Whether Difference in Religion be Infidelitie But some may say that St. Paul speaketh of an Infidel or Heathen that denieth Christ plainly which is not the case of a Christian Prince though he be somwhat different in Religion To which is answered That supposing there is but one only Religion that can be true among Christians as both Reason and Athanasius his Creed doth plainly teach us and moreover seeing that to me there can be no other Faith or Religion available for my salvation than only that which I my self do believe for that mine own Conscience must testifie for me or against me certain it is that unto me and my Conscience he which in any Point believeth otherwise than I do and standeth wilfully in the same is an Infidel for that he believeth not that which in my Faith and Conscience is the only and sole truth whereby he must be saved And so long as I have this opinion of him albeit his Religion were never so true I shall do against my Conscience and sin damnably in the sight of God to prefer him to a Charge where he may draw many other to his own Errors and Perdition wherein I do perswade my self that he remaineth How he that doth against his Conscience sinneth And this Point is founded upon that which St. Paul saith against such Christians as being invited to the Banquets of the Gentiles did eat the meats offered to Idols which themselves do judge to be unlawful to eat which he saith was a damnable sin not for that the thing in it self was unlawful but for that they did judge it so and yet did the contrary And the reason he yieldeth presently Quia non ex fide omne autem quod non est ex fide est peccatum Doing a thing though in it self indifferent against their own Conscience which must be their witness at the latter day How dangerous a sin to favor a Pretender of a contrary Religion Now to apply this to the matter of England I affirm and hold That for any man to give his Help or Consent towards the making of a King whom he judgeth or believeth to be faultie in Religion how good or bad soever he be or of what side soever the truth be it is a most grievous and damnable sin And is guilty of all the evils miseries and calamities which may ensue by his Government whether they do so or no Because knowing in his belief that he is like or in disposition to bring all those evils yet he doth further or not resist him How far it is also against Wisdom and Policie to prefer a Prince of a contrary Religion Moreover besides the matter of Conscience It cannot in Policie but be great folly and over-sight for a man to promote to a Kingdom wherein himself must live one of a contrary Religion to himself For let the bargains agreements and promises be never so great yet seeing the Prince once settled must needs proceed according to the principles of his own Religion it followeth also that he must come quickly to break with the other Partie And so many Jealousies Suspitions Accusations c. will light upon him as not only he shall not be capable of such Preferments Honors and Charges which men may deserve and desire in their Common-wealths but also he shall be in continual danger and subject to a thousand molestations and injuries and so before he beware will become to be accompted an enemy or backward man Which to remedy he must either dissemble deeply and against his own Conscience make shew to favor and set forward that which in his heart he doth detest which is the greatest calamity and miserie of all other or else to avoid this everlasting perdition he must break with all the temporal commodities of this life and leave the benefits which his Country might yield him And this is the ordinary end of all such men how soft and sweet soëver the beginnings be The Conclusion of the whole Speech That the next Heir after the Queen must needs be verie Doubtful And therefore to conclude all this Speech Seeing there be so great inconveniencies and dangers in respect both of God and man body and Soul to advance to the Crown a Prince of contrary Religion And considering that in England there is so great diversitie of Religions as the world knoweth between these Parties and Factions that have to Pretend or admit the next Prince after Her Majestie that now is Calling to mind also the great Libertie Scope and Authoritie which the Common-wealth hath to determine even against the clear right of Succession And laying finally before our eies the manifold and different Acts of Christian Realms before mentioned in this affair It appeareth as it was propounded in the beginning That it is a very doubtful case who shall be the next Prince after the Queen And much more if above all this it be proved also as it shall be in the Second Book that among such as do or may pretend of the Blood Royal at this day their true Succession and next Propinquitie by birth is also incertain and disputable FINIS CAP. I. BOOKS WRITTEN 1. BY one Hales sirnamed Clubfoot Clerk of the Hamp in which the Lord Keeper Bacon was thought to have a hand and Sir William Cecil a privitie 2. In favor of the Lady Katharine Gray daughter of the Lady Frances Dutchess of Suffolk the daughter of Marie yonger daughter of Henry 7. to prefer her before the Scot discended of Margaret the elder daughter 3. Because he was a Stranger or Alien therefore not to inherit by Law 4. Henry 8. had authority given him by two Parlaments of 28. and 36. to dispose of the Succession by his last Will and ordained his own issue failing that the off-spring of Mary should be preferred before that of Margaret 5. Against this one Morgan a Divine of Oxford with the advice of Judge Brown as it was thought wrote first to clear the Queen of Scots from her Husbands death 2 handled her Title to our Crown 3 against the
either for Valor Prowess length of Reign acts of Chivalrie or the multitude of famous Princes his Children left behind him was one of the noblest Kings that ever England had RICHARD 2d Richard the 2d Son to the black Prince of Wales for having suffered himself to be misled by evil Counsellers to the great hurt and disquietness of the Realm was deposed also after 22. years reign by a Parliament holden at London the year 1399. and condemned to perpetual Prison in the Castle of Pomfret where he was soon after put to death and in his place was by free Election chosen the noble Knight Henry * Duke of Lancaster who proved afterwards so notable a King as the world knoweth HENRY 6th Henry 6th after almost 40. years reign was deposed imprisoned and put to death also together with his Son the Prince of Wales by Edward 4th of the House of York And this was confirmed by the * Commons and afterwards also by publick Act of Parliament because the said Henry did suffer himself to be over-ruled by the Queen his Wife and had broken the Articles of Agreement made by the Parlament between him and the Duke of York and solemnly sworn on both sides the 8th of Octob. 1459. though otherwise for his particular life he were a good man and King Edward 4th was put in place who was one of the renownedest for Martial Acts and Justice that hath worn the English Crown RICHARD 3d. This man having left two Sons his Brother Richard Duke of Glocester put them to death and being the next Heir Male was authorised in the Crown but Deposed again afterwards by the Common-wealth which called out of France Henry Earle of Richmond who took from him both life and Kingdom in the Field and was King himself by the name of Henry 7. And no man I suppose will say but that he was lawfully King also which yet cannot be except the other might lawfully be deposed If the said Deprivations were unjust the now Pretences are unlawful Moreover is to be noted in all these Mutations what good hath succeeded therein to the Common-wealth which was unjust and is void at this day if the Changes and Deprivations of the former Princes could not be made and consequently none of these that do pretend the Crown of England at this day can have any Title at all for that from those men they discend who were put in place of the deprived If Kings established may be Deprived much sooner Pretenders And if this might be so in Kings lawfully set in Possession then much more hath the said Common-wealth power and authoritie to alter the succession of such as do pretend Dignitie if there be due reason and causes to the same Wherein consisteth principally the lawfulness of Proceedings against Princes which in the former Chapter is mentioned What interest Princes have in their Subjects Goods or Lives How Oaths do Binde or may be Broken by Subjests towards Princes And finally the difference between a good King and a Tyrant CAP. IV. 1. Objection against the Assertions in the last Chapter BUt although by Nature the Common-wealth hath authoritie over the Prince to chuse and appoint him at the beginning yet having once made him and given up all their authoritie unto him he is no more subject to their correction but remaineth absolute of himself As every particular man hath authorised to make his Master or Prince of his inferior but not afterwards to put him down again howsoever he beareth himself towards him 2. Objection When the Children of Israël being under the Government of the High Priest demanded a King of Samuel he protesting unto them Well quoth he you will have a King hearken then to this that I will say Hoc erit jus Regis qui imperaturus est vobis He shall take away from you your Children both Sons and Daughters your Fields and Vineyards c. and shall give them to his servants and you shall cry unto God in that day from the face of this your King and God shall not hear you for that you have demanded a King to Govern over you Assertions of Bellay Yea Bellay and some other that wrote in flatterie of Princes in these our days do not only affirm That Princes are lawless and subject to no accompt or correction whatsoever they do But also That all goods chattels possessions and whatsoever else commodities temporal of the Common wealth are properly the Kings and that their Subjects have only the use thereof so as when the King will he may take it from them by right Answer to Bellay his First Assertion But for the first That Kings are subject to no Law Is against the very Institution of a Common-wealth which is to live together in Justice and Order for if it holdeth so insteed of Kings and Governors to defend us we may set up publick murtherers ravishers theeves and spoylers to devour us Then were all those Kings before mentioned both of the Jewes Gentiles and Christians unlawfully deprived and their Successors unlawfully put up in their places and consequentlie all Princes living at this day are intruders and no lawful Princes Answer to Bellay his Second Assertion Of the second saying also That all temporalities are properly the Princes and that Subjects have only the use thereof no less absurdities do follow First it is against the very first principle and foundation of the Civil Law which at the first entrance maketh this division of Goods That some are common by Nature to all men as the Aër the Sea c. Others are publick to all of one Citie or Countrie but yet not common to all in general as Rivers Ports c. Some are of the Communitie of a Citie or Common-wealth but yet not common to every particular person of that Citie as common Rents Theaters the publick hous and the like Some are of none nor properly of any man's Goods as Churches and Sacred things And some are proper to particular men as those which every man possesseth of his own Besides it overthroweth the whole nature of a Common-wealth maketh all Subject to be but very slaves for that slaves and bondmen in this do differ from freemen that slaves have only the use of things without property or interest and cannot acquire or get to themselves any dominion or true right in any thing but it accreweth all to their Master Lastly If all Goods be properly the King's why was Achab and Jezabel so reprehended and punished by God for taking away Naboth's vineyard Why do the Kings of England France and Spain ask Money of their Subjects in Parlament and that termed by the names of Subsidies Helps Benevolences Loans Prests Contributions c How have the Parlament oftentimes denied them the same Why are there Judges appointed for matter of Suits and Pleas between the Prince and the People Why doth the Canon Law inhibit all